Jump to content

Child Mauled In Wa Park


OSoSwift
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rangers this evening swooped on the home of an Eden Hill woman whose dogs allegedly attacked the girl at Success Hill Reserve about 4.45pm on Friday.

The girl remains in a stable condition at Princess Margaret Hospital after surgery at the weekend.

She suffered significant injuries when the dogs bit her face, head, back and legs. Some of the bites exposed her muscles and tendons.

The girl’s 16-year-old brother intervened and held his sister above his head but he too was attacked by the dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any dog attack sickens me, but this particular one really made my blood boil :mad

Not only was it in an on lead area but apparently the owner had said "If you see my dogs coming, make sure you stand up" not long before the dogs attacked :(

On top of that, the owner left the scene :mad

It also might not have been the first time these dogs had been threatening/attacked.

I hope the owner gets the maximum fines.

Edited by raffikki
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it completely disgraceful.

The dogs should never have been off lead, she obviously knew they had issues, and then bolted and hid them.

She has monumentally let down the girl and her family and the dogs.

A disgusting excuse for a human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The brother is an absolute hero. He should be nominated for a bravery award.

I have kids that age, they are not small. To act as he did and physically manage that is amazing.

Not to mention he was being attacked as well. I believe he is the reason she survived.

I believe the woman should go to jail for attempted manslaughter or something equal. She is a disgrace.

If my dogs did that they would be euthed immediately. Get help an ambulance dogs restrained all that, then immediate euthanasia.

I do doubt however, I would ever have it happen as I would never risk my dogs or people

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Western Australian Current Acts

DOG ACT 1976 - SECT 33D

33D . Dog attacks etc.

(1) If a dog attacks or chases any person or animal and physical injury is caused to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.

Penalty:

(a) for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $20 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $1 000;

(b) for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000.

(2A) If a dog attacks or chases any person or animal without causing physical injury to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.

Penalty:

(a) for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $500;

(b) for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $3 000.

(2B) It is a defence to a charge of an offence under subsection (1) or (2A) if the person charged satisfies the court —

(a) in the case of any person, that the dog was being used in good faith in the reasonable defence of any person or property or for the droving or removal of any animal found trespassing; or

(b) in the case of the occupier of premises where the dog is ordinarily kept or ordinarily permitted to live, that at the material time the dog was owned by another person who had reached 18 years of age, and who is identified by the person charged; or

© in the case of the owner, that at the material time the dog was in the possession or control of another person without the owner’s consent, express or implied.

(2) A person shall not set on or urge a dog to attack or chase any person or animal, whether or not any injury is caused, except in good faith —

(a) in the reasonable defence of any person or property; or

(b) for the droving or removal of any animal if —

(i) the owner or person in charge of the animal consents to the droving or removal; or

(ii) the animal is found trespassing.

Penalty:

(a) for an offence relating to a dangerous dog, a fine of $20 000 and imprisonment for 2 years, but the minimum penalty is a fine of $1 000;

(b) for an offence relating to a dog other than a dangerous dog, a fine of $10 000 and imprisonment for 12 months.

(3) Nothing in this section affects —

(a) the duty that a person, who has a dog in the person’s charge or under the person’s control, has under The Criminal Code section 266(2); or

(b) the operation of The Criminal Code section 266(2) or Chapter XXVIII or XXIX, or any other law in relation to the consequences of omitting to perform that duty.

[section 33D inserted by No. 23 of 1987 s. 27; amended by No. 24 of 1996 s. 9 and 16; No. 18 of 2013 s. 33.]

[Heading inserted by No. 24 of 1996 s. 10.]

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard there were other reports of these dogs attacking others in the past too

That owner is the one who should be put to sleep :mad:mad

I hope the young girl and her brother recover ok

Those poor dogs will pay with their lives now and it might be the best thing for them as how could you ever trust them again ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hate terms like 'Stafford Cross'. It's very unnecessary to include the Stafford. They could, and should just go with mixed breed.

Drives me NUTS.

judging by the photos of the owner holding a puppy perhaps she was even breeding them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...