Destruction order adds to confusion on pit bulls
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.(First Edition)
CONFUSION surrounding the enforcement of the Dangerous Dogs Act grew yesterday as another dog claimed by its owner to be a mongrel was ordered on appeal to be destroyed as a banned pit bull.
Different magistrates and judges on appeal have used different standards proposed by expert witnesses. Last month, a dog described as a pedigree Staffordshire terrier by two Crufts judges was ordered to be destroyed.
The Act orders the compulsory destruction of all of the 'type of dog known as the pit bull' unless registered before the end of last year, but it stipulates that every case should be decided on its merits. At least one case is awaiting judicial review, but until that is heard, there is no case law on how to interpret the Act.
Yesterday, Judge Kenneth Zucker told Wood Green Crown Court in north London that he accepted the American Dog Breeders' Association standard, used by the prosecution to show that the dog Buster was a pit bull.
The judge rejected the evidence of Dr Roger Mugford, an animal expert, because he gave evidence mostly concerning behaviour and not the dog's physical characteristics, although an expert witness for the prosecution had emphasised the aggressive characteristics which mark a pit bull.
The Crown witness, Jan Euchus, chief RSPCA inpector, had said: 'The dog shows with a few minor exceptions all the characteristics of a pure-bred American pit bull terrier.
'I can't say if this is a badly bred pit bull or not a pit bull at all which somehow mysteriously ended up with the characteristics of a pit bull.'
Buster, a two-year-old brindle and white dog, has been kept in police kennels for almost a year.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments