Derek Adam, whose rottweiler dogs savaged a 10-year-old girl in a Dundee street, has had his conviction upheld by an appeal court in Edinburgh.
Adam has been sent back to jail after being released pending his appeal almost exactly a year ago. The 40-year-old had been on bail while challenging his conviction for breaches of the Dangerous Dogs legislation.
But judges at the Court of Criminal Appeal in Edinburgh rejected his claim that he was not to blame because the dogs, Fat Boy and Pretty Girl, had escaped from his ex-girlfriend’s garden.
They ordered him to complete the 12-month sentence which followed a trial at Dundee Sheriff Court in December 2011.
The jury heard then that in August, 2010, Adam’s rottweilers had attacked another dog after dashing from Sarah Kerr’s garden in Linton Road.
They then turned on the girl, pulling her from her bike and mauling her as she lay screaming in the road. The girl was left with a broken jaw and a horrific wound to her thigh.
The trial heard her injuries might have been more serious if Mrs Irene Grady (57) had not come to the rescue. Her efforts were praised by the girl’s mother and by Sheriff Richard Davidson.
Passing sentence, the sheriff also noted that Adam’s dogs had attacked a man five months earlier.
“This was an accident waiting to happen because of your neglect. These dogs were wreaking havoc but you demonstrated a ‘couldn’t care less’ attitude.”
Sarah Kerr, who was also charged over the incident, claimed she did not know that Fat Boy and Pretty Boy had been left in her garden and was cleared.
Adam, then of Lintrathen Street, was found guilty of owning dogs which were dangerously out of control and a second charge of failing to comply with a previous order made by Dundee Justice of the Peace Court to keep the rotweillers under proper control.
As well as the prison sentence, he was banned from keeping dogs for life.
Solicitor advocate Chris Ffyffe, defending, told appeal judges that the law was unfair and breached the European Convention on Human Rights.
The appeal court heard that the dangerous dogs legislation included a get-out clause if an owner could prove that the animals had been left in the charge of a fit and proper person.
Mr Fyffe argued that Adam should not have to prove his former girlfriend was a fit and proper person because that would go against the legal presumption of innocence.
The lawyer said it would be unfair to make criminals of dog owners if they themselves were not responsible for failing to control a dog at the time of an incident.
Delivering the appeal judges’ ruling, Lord Menzies said the Dangerous Dogs Act was there for public safety and there was nothing objectionable about making an accused prove someone else was in charge of the dogs at the time.
The girl’s mother told The Courier that the appeal judges’ decision was “brilliant.”
She said: “Obviously, a longer sentence would have been better, but at least he has to finish the one he has.”