Uk Baby Killed By 'banned' Dog

[Pjrt]

LINK TO STORY

A PIT bull terrier that mauled to death an 11-month-old girl in northern England was a dangerous dog banned under UK law.

Ava-Jayne Marie Corless was asleep in bed at a house in Blackburn, Lancashire, on Monday when she was savaged by the animal.

Police and ambulance staff attempted to resuscitate her but she was pronounced dead at Royal Blackburn Hospital a short time later.

The girl's mother, Chloe King, 20, and her partner, Lee Wright, 26, are being questioned on suspicion of manslaughter.

Local police said the dog, which was destroyed after the attack, had been identified by experts as a pit bull terrier-type dog which people are prohibited from owning under Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Ava-Jayne's father paid tribute to his daughter.

"She was the most beautiful and adorable little girl, she was just the best. She was my whole world. Her mum and I aren't together any more, but I saw Ava-Jayne all the time," Dean Corless told the Daily Mirror tabloid.

"I will miss her every single day. I just don't know what to do now. It is so tragic. I have my family around me, but we are all devastated."

The girl's grandmother, Bernadette Corless, added: "It just can't believe it, it's such a shock. She was so young, it is so unfair for a baby to be taken away. She was just beautiful, like a china doll. She was a lively baby and was always happy."

Locals claim to have made previous complaints about the large dog's behaviour to police.

It was reported that the RSPCA had been called to the house after claims that a neighbour's cat had been killed, but the charity concluded it was an accident.

King and Wright were said to be downstairs when the attack took place while Ava-Jayne was in a front bedroom.

The couple were initially arrested on suspicion of child neglect before they were re-arrested on the more serious offence of manslaughter.

[Dame Aussie]

[Rosetta]

Curious that the parents have been charged with manslaughter. Poor little girl

[Guest Ams]

This may help understand why they have been charge with manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence. For these purposes, recklessness is defined as a blatant disregard for the dangers of a particular situation. An example of this would be dropping a brick off a bridge, landing on a person's head, killing him. Since the intent is not to kill the victim, but simply to drop the brick, the mens rea required for murder does not exist because the act is not aimed at any one person. But if in dropping the brick, there is a good chance of injuring someone, the person who drops it will be reckless. This form of manslaughter is also termed "unlawful act" or "constructive" manslaughter.

Manslaughter by gross negligence

Under English law, where a person causes death through extreme carelessness or incompetence, gross negligence is required. While the specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances and so may include both acts and omissions.

The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession and cause death. In R v Bateman[7] the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:

the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;

the defendant breached this duty;

the breach caused the death of the deceased; and

the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law

[Pjrt]

Oh jeeze I just read in a slightly updated story that the dogs name was 'Killer'......

LINK

[kelpiecuddles]

If that's a pic of the dog on the magazine cover it can't be a pit bull, after all didn't we already ascertain that pit bulls by definition can't be white

Sounds to me like a serious case of moron owner raising a bad dog...poor baby

[ari.g]

after all didn't we already ascertain that pit bulls by definition can't be white

I may have missed something but WTF?? (I'm sure there is some sarcasm intended)

[kelpiecuddles]

The Victorian crappola of how they are defining what a pit bull is.

This is the reference Ari.g: http://www.gazette.vic.gov.au/gazette/Gazettes2014/GG2014S022.pdf

Exemption on the first page states that if the dog is blue merle or pure white then it's not a pitbull. There's a thread called something like 'the circus goes on' if you want to read more, as I won't take this thread any further OT

Edited February 12, 2014 by kelpiecuddles

[ari.g]

Ah ok. The picture I saw was of a tan coloured dog supposedly from her facebook page.

[kelpiecuddles]

Didn't see that one, maybe they have a stock photo of a white dog on the mag

[ricey]

Shit it is sad that a lovely little girl got killed by a dog, but by a pit bull? These dogs have have been banned and actively eradicated in the UK since 1991.

So, not by a pit bull, but by some other dog of some other breed.

Still sad, but not a pit bull.

No such dog in the UK.

And if there are pitties in the UK, why? Really, does the breed matter?

Thirteen years since 1991 when the UK banned pit bulls; most pit bulls would be dead by now. My 13 year old pit bull Hobbes is older than most pit bulls, and he prances about like a puppy but he really is an old dog that is not too far from the rainbow bridge. I think that it is unlikely that an American Pit Bull Terrier killed this little girl. More like a big poorly trained and poorly controlled dog killed this little girl.

But hey! Lets blame a pit bull.

ricey

Edited February 12, 2014 by ricey

[tdierikx]

Pitties are all but banned here too ricey... but obviously as you have one, we can see how well that piece of legislation has worked...

T.

[Pjrt]

Ah ok. The picture I saw was of a tan coloured dog supposedly from her facebook page.

The brown dog was in a link I posted to the story of the US woman being mauled by her neighbours mastiff mix type dog

[Sabbath]

The fact that it states 'large dog' would indicate that it's not a pit bull. So tired of incorrect breed identification. REALLY tired. That a child died should be horrific enough without having to make it 'scarier' by falsely blaming a breed.

[Dame Aussie]

Yeah I always wonder when they say it's a pit bull, then call it large. Pit bulls are not large dogs, so chances are its some type of mutt.

[Alyosha]

I have seen Border Collies deemed a "large" breed sometimes - particularly in regard to pet products, so not just by numpties in the street.

It is sometimes relative to who is making the call. If that someone is used to toy dogs then a pitbull may well be considered a large dog.

[Dame Aussie]

Fair point, I wouldn't ever call a border collie large but I guess people see things differently. I'd call a GSD, Rotti or Ridgeback (for example) large.

[tdierikx]

Harper (Staffy/Dane - 28kg) was billed as a "large" dog when boarded recently... and Trouble (Labrador - 26kg) was billed as "medium"...

I think it was because Harper's legs are longer... *grin*

T.

[kelpiecuddles]

Yes I do think the leg length throws people, try having a basset! Theoretically they are a large breed, averaging 25-30kg but a lot of places label them a medium breed because of their height

[tdierikx]

Harper and Trouble take up pretty much the same amount of space though... but I think they may have put Trouble in a smaller enclosure, as she's come home with "happy tail"... grrr! I was covered in tail wagging blood this morning... vetwrap has seen to that for now, but it's a bitch to keep on a constantly wagging tail.

T.