tybrax Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 Sam’s video on u-tube, please cross post Metropolitan Police Mistake Kills Family Pet: A west London family have been left inconsolable and are demanding answers following the tragic news that the Metropolitan police have destroyed their family pet dog Sam, in error. Sam, a four year old Staffordshire Bull Terrier was seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 legislation on 5th May 2009, six months after an incident in which he nipped a travelling salesman once in the leg when he called at the home of owner Melanie Hawes. Sam had never shown any signs of aggression to anyone either prior to the incident or in the six months following the incident. In July of this year, Miss Hawes, a woman of previous good character, appeared before Ealing Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to an offence under s3 (1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Advice was sought from Dr Mugford, a leading animal behaviourist who carried out a behavioural assessment on Sam. Dr Mugford found him to be friendly and compliant and concluded he should not be destroyed but should instead be made subject to a Contingent Destruction Order with conditions that he be either on a lead or muzzled when in a public place. He also recommended further training for the dog. On 31st July 2009 Miss Hawes was sentenced by Ealing Magistrates Court; she was ordered to pay £500 in compensation and a Destruction Order was made against Sam. A notice of Appeal was immediately lodged at court and the appeal hearing was scheduled for the 29th September at Isleworth Crown Court. Appearing before the Crown Court, a hopeful owner, expert witness Dr Mugford and prosecuting and defence counsel were gathered and ready to commence proceedings when it was suddenly revealed that Sam had been euthanised on the 26th August 2009. Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. On being told this information in court His Honour Judge Lowen stated that this was in clear contravention of the Act which states that the order shall not take effect until the Appeal is heard. He went on to say that this action was in conflict with those provisions and it was for another court to deal with the consequences. Owner Melanie Hawes was left in court shocked to the core that the dog that she hoped would be coming home had in fact been dead for the past five weeks. Overcome with grief and chocking back the tears Sam’s owner Melanie told DDA Watch: “I can’t believe what has happened, that our dog had died due to some kind of paperwork mistake and I have to break the news now to my 11 year old daughter when she comes home from school, she loves Sam so much and has been waiting for him to come home.” As is usual in Dangerous Dogs Act cases, the owner wasn’t informed when her dog was to be euthanized nor offered the opportunity to receive the body back for burial or cremation. Solicitor Tina Hay of Wheldon Law, who is acting for Miss Hawes, is already in talks with the head of the Metropolitan Police Status Dogs Unit (SDU) to try and discover how such an appalling error could have occurred Last year a much loved and previously healthy family pet seized under the Act by the Met. Police died suddenly in kennels 17 days after seizure. Following communications with the police and post mortem examination, the distressed family were waiting on the return of their cherished pet’s body when on the day of arrival they were informed that their dog had been sent to the crematorium by mistake due to being placed in the wrongly coloured disposal bag, leaving another family overwhelmed with the loss of their dog. The Metropolitan Police have a specialist dog unit, the SDU that is meant to ensure a professional handling of canine related cases and questions are being asked yet again. (ends) For further Information Please Contact: DDA Watch – 0844 844 2900 Email: [email protected] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nekhbet Posted October 10, 2009 Share Posted October 10, 2009 aweful lot of mistakes how terrible and tragic ... absolutely disgusting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. Well, that sentence doesn't make much sense in the end. The police were unaware the dog was dead? Well then, who had the dog pts? And whose job is it to tell the police that an appeal was lodged? Were they just supposed to know? It doesn't sound like a police stuff-up, it sounds like a solicitor or court stuff up and if that's so, then the police are not to blame. I somehow doubt they're psychic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Sam, was certainly no SBT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin-Genie Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 ...nor offered the opportunity to receive the body back for burial or cremation. I don't understand the logic behind this. Surely even the owners of a dangerous dog deserve the right to receive their dog's body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozjen Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 How come the dog was dead for 5 weeks without the owner knowing? Surely if the dog had been confiscated the owner would have attempted to visit the dog in this time not just waited for the court case.......... I feel for the dog but wonder if the owner is more concerned about compensation that the dog itself. I agree though that it should never have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TessiesTracey Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Sam, was certainly no SBT Why? As appalling as this is, I also don't understand why the owners didn't try to visit whilst the dog was in the Met's 'care'? I'm pretty sure they would have been allowed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashanali Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. Well, that sentence doesn't make much sense in the end. The police were unaware the dog was dead? Well then, who had the dog pts? And whose job is it to tell the police that an appeal was lodged? Were they just supposed to know? It doesn't sound like a police stuff-up, it sounds like a solicitor or court stuff up and if that's so, then the police are not to blame. I somehow doubt they're psychic. poor sentence structure. It should probably read something like this: Sam was already dead as the police were apparently unaware that an appeal had been lodged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. Well, that sentence doesn't make much sense in the end. The police were unaware the dog was dead? Well then, who had the dog pts? And whose job is it to tell the police that an appeal was lodged? Were they just supposed to know? It doesn't sound like a police stuff-up, it sounds like a solicitor or court stuff up and if that's so, then the police are not to blame. I somehow doubt they're psychic. poor sentence structure. It should probably read something like this: Sam was already dead as the police were apparently unaware that an appeal had been lodged Still not their fault. The fault belongs to whoever was supposed to notify them. Plus, it doesn't say who pts the dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roxiedog Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Sam’s video on u-tube, please cross post after an incident in which he nipped a travelling salesman once in the leg when he called at the home of owner Melanie Hawes. Poor little sam. I don’t know about you guys but sometimes I feel like giving pushy travelling salesmen more than a nip in the leg. It makes you realize your dogs aren’t even safe in your own home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 How come the dog was dead for 5 weeks without the owner knowing? Surely if the dog had been confiscated the owner would have attempted to visit the dog in this time not just waited for the court case.......... I feel for the dog but wonder if the owner is more concerned about compensation that the dog itself. I agree though that it should never have happened. No, I believe the owners are not always allowed to visit the dogs that have been confiscated. Some are not even informed of where the dog is being held. I don't think they are only in it for the compensation, they had gone to the trouble of employing Dr Mugford to test the dog, as seen in the video, and were appealing the destruction order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Sam was seized for biting a sales man. So why is it a BSL issue ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheridan Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Sam was seized for biting a sales man. So why is it a BSL issue ? Because of Sam's breed, presumably. If he was a small white fluffy, no one would be interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now