Angus dog to be destroyed following attack

editorial image
0
Have your say

Appeal judges have ruled that a dangerous Rottweiler called Kai has to die for attacking a Canadian tourist.

Judges sitting at Edinburgh’s Sheriff Appeal Court ruled today (Tuesday) that the animal has to be destroyed.

The animal’s owner Wendy Ross, 34, instructed lawyers to seek a reprieve for two-year-old Kai’s life.

The dog was sentenced to death in November 2015 by Sheriff Gregor Murray at Forfar Sheriff Court.

During a trial, a man called James Ryan, 62, was convicted of being in charge of Kai when it repeatedly bit Charles Andrews in Montrose on June 11, 2015.

A woman, who witnessed the attack and cannot be mentioned for legal reasons, said she witnessed the horrifying incident.

She said: “I saw one of his legs had been bitten and he was bleeding a lot.”

Ms Ross, also of Montrose, gave evidence in the case and said Kai was a “loving dog” who was taken out for a walk without her permission.

At the conclusion of the case, Sheriff Murray said he had no other option but to appeal Kai’s destruction.

He said: “In my opinion the dog was dangerously out of control. It is a matter of considerable regret that I consider Kai would constitute a danger to public safety.

“I have every sympathy for Ms Ross but the fact is the legislation compels me.”

Today, solicitor advocate Jim Stephenson told the court that experts reckoned Kai could be spared.

Mr Stephenson told the court that Kai could be neutered and be given a muzzle.

He said: “This could stop him from biting.”

Mr Stephenson also told the court that Ms Ross was willing to give up ownership of the dog if the appeal was successful.

However, the court ruled that the sheriff acted correctly and that Kai has to be destroyed.

Sheriff Principal Mhairi Stephen QC – who chaired the three judge appeal - said: “On the day of the offence, Kai presented as a danger to the public.

“Even if the dog was to be neutered and muzzled, it still shows that the dog constitutes a danger.

“We fail to see to how the sheriff erred in law. In our view the appeal falls to be refused.”