Parents' Outrage Over Dog Attack Ruling

[White Shepherd mom]

Site link

The parents of a 4-year-old boy seriously injured in a dog attack last year say they are "gobsmacked" by a judge's decision to dismiss charges against the owners.

Charlie Pokai, now 5, was visiting Anthony Hedgemen and Tara Julian's Baycroft Ave home on July 12 last year with his older sister and mother, Miranda Devereaux, when he was attacked by the couple's tan bull mastiff, Big.

The dog had been lying in the backyard with a bone when Charlie approached him and was attacked. Ms Julian and Charlie's mother were inside.

Charlie required surgery after his lip was partially severed and he also had a puncture wound below his nose.

In the Tauranga District Court yesterday, Mr Hedgemen and Ms Julian defended a charge of being the owner of a dog which attacked another person and caused serious injury.

They argued they had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the risk of an attack.

Prosecuting lawyer Jasper Rhodes, who represented the Tauranga City Council, argued the defendants should have instructed the other adults to monitor the dog.

Judge Thomas Ingram rejected that and dismissed the charge.

"I don't accept the law specifically requires dog owners to directly instruct other adults that they must exercise control over the dog on basis that it may have a likelihood of attacking children," he said.

There was no direct evidence the defendants had failed in their duty in terms of the steps taken to safeguard their visitors, he said.

Charlie's father, Henry Pokai, told the Bay of Plenty Times he was "absolutely gobsmacked" by the ruling.

"Judge Ingram has sent a clear message to the owners of dogs which attack people that all they need to do is say they had a few other adults present and the prosecution case will be thrown out," he said.

"This sets a precedent and could mean every dog-attack prosecution case taken by any council goes down the gurgler."

Mr Pokai said the decision could provide a defence opening to the owners of dogs which attacked the little girl in Murupara this week.

He said he would speak to his lawyer about the possibility of an appeal.

"While Charlie is a happy, spirited little boy, his scars could remain with him for life, and still needs hospital treatment every couple of months and regular facial massages."

Ms Devereaux said she was disappointed that she did not get the chance to tell her side of the story at the hearing.

Outside court, Ms Julian said the decision to defend the charge had no bearing on how they felt about what happened to Charlie and the impact on him and his family.

The dog was destroyed after the couple surrendered it late last year.

The dog had no history of attacking people, Ms Julian said.

Tauranga City Council's animal services team leader Brent Lincoln was not discounting the council lodging an appeal.

The poor dog was just minding his own business, eating his bone in the back yard. When do the parents claim responsibility for not protecting their own child?

[Kavik]

Leaving a child unattended with a dog who is eating a bone is taking all reasonable steps to prevent the risk of an attack?

[alpha bet]

At least the judge has shown some common sense.... All the adults present should be taking care.... the dog was in his own backyard.....

[Dame Aussie]

I agree with the judge, who lets their child approach a dog with a bone?? Just another example of people who would rather sue than just supervise their kids.

[Bjelkier]

Thankfully the judge was smart about this.

Poor dog

[cavNrott]

While Mr Polkai, the child's parent is talking about precedents. I wish this case would set a precedent for adults to use their common sense and always supervise their children around dogs.

[Guest Wildthing]

While Mr Polkai, the child's parent is talking about precedents. I wish this case would set a precedent for adults to use their common sense and always supervise their children around dogs.

Don't hold your breath waiting for common sense to be used, it is no longer common!

[MishB]

Every adult in that house who knew there was a dog in the yard and a young child wandering around should be held accountable IMO.

[Simply Grand]

Every adult in that house who knew there was a dog in the yard and a young child wandering around should be held accountable IMO.

I don't agree with that, not every adult has knowledge of dog behaviour, or child behaviour for that matter, let alone both.

It depends so much what happened, had the owner shut the dog out the back and not expected the child to go out there? Did she explicitly warn the mother not to let the child out the back while the dog was there? Was the mother aware of where her child was? Did either dog owner or mother realise the kid was out the back?

I think if both dog owner and mother were aware that the kid was out there or was likely to go out there they are both responsible, but even then it's quite possible that the mother had no idea what dogs are capable of and that the dog owner had no idea what kids are capable of and it didn't occur to either of them that they needed to be more vigilant than they were in this situation.

ETA - I definitely agree with the judge's decision.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Simply Grand

[Little Gifts]

I think there is a lot of info we don't know in this case. The injuries sound like one snap rather than an 'attack'. I consider an attack repeated biting where as this sounds like it could've happened with just one responsive, 'stay back' bite. The dog may have already been eating his bone when the other family just popped in for a quick visit. All adults may have lost track of the child for just a minute. The owners did not have their dog pts till later in the year so obviously they did not consider their dog as a danger to others under normal circumstances.

The dog was still the big loser again even if it was the human's who stuffed up. I'd hate to ever be in this position.

[raineth]

As the owner of a dog I do consider my responsibility to keep other safe from my dog. I would never give my dogs bones in the backyard if I was going to have a child visitor over using the backyard, and my dogs don't even show any signs of resource guarding.

I'm he one with the dog, so it's my responsibility to understand enough about my dog to keep others safe from it.

[tdierikx]

I pen or confine my dogs to areas that kids can't get to them... if kids ever come over to visit... and it's not for the childrens' safety, rather it's for the dogs' safety... as kids can be very silly around dogs in general.

T.

[Loving my Oldies]

The poor dog was just minding his own business, eating his bone in the back yard. When do the parents claim responsibility for not protecting their own child?

That is really sad. The parents of the boy should have been keeping an eye on him, the owners of the dogs should have let everyone know the dog was in the backyard with his bone. These people may be friends of long standing, the visitors may know the dog, etc etc etc. Lots of unknowns.

But when people take their children visiting they should be keeping an eagle eye on them.

Every adult in that house who knew there was a dog in the yard and a young child wandering around should be held accountable IMO.

Nope. Your child, your responsibility.

rather it's for the dogs' safety...

This is why I won't let children come up to my dogs when I am walking them unless they ask and then I tell them who they can pat and who they must leave alone - not because the dogs might bite but because a couple are easily frightened.

It is good to see a judge getting a handle on responsibility.

[Little Gifts]

I never even leave my dogs unsupervised in my own home around other adults let alone children. And I would certainly never give dog who might be excited to see visitors/children any food that took time to eat (a quick swallow treat only) or toys.

Anyone who has been to my house knows I have three very different dogs - one flings herself at everyone in desperate need of attention and cuddles to the point of it being annoying. She loves everyone but I would never assume she was always going to be safe - what if she gets a fright or gets accidentally stood on and has a little snap in her excited state? I don't know what goes on in her head all the time and I'd hate her to pay the price of just being herself with her life.

Having dogs means I am also more vigilant with people who visit my house who don't know my dogs or who aren't used to dogs in general. Yes it is a parent's responsibility to know and protect their child but while they are in my house I think it is up to me establish the rules that will keep humans and dogs safe. My house, my dogs, my visitors, my rules.

[Loving my Oldies]

I think it is up to me establish the rules that will keep humans and dogs safe. My house, my dogs, my visitors, my rules.

Totally agree, but it is also the parents' responsibility to keep their children safe.

[Little Gifts]

I already said that bit in the same sentence DD. I'm all for a two pronged approach!