Comments on: Cambridgeshire Police Not to Prosecute In Case of Rottweiller Seriously Injuring Cambridge Postman

By: Richard Taylor

Richard Taylor — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:36:51 +0000

There’s an update in the paper today:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=484925

Judge Gareth Hawkesworth ruled at Cambridge Crown Court against the prosecution’s argument that the road was public, and acquitted the pair.

He said: “A clear breach of the prosecution code has been made and to continue prosecuting would amount to an abuse of process.”,

I think that it was wrong that the decision as to if the road was a public place was made by a Judge rather than a Jury.

By: Mike Wong

Mike Wong — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:19:32 +0000

I work in an industry that deal with loose dogs on a daily basis. After reading this news letter, it is ridiculous that the owners are not being held accountable for the actions of their animals. It is appalling that they can enter a “not guilty” plea. It was “their animals” they are responsible. If it were a child being mauled, the child would be dead…

By: Richard

Richard — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:51:54 +0000

A prosecution was brought:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=441962

The wheels of justice in this country go far too slowly - the Magistrates have referred it to Crown Court.

By: John Lawton

John Lawton — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 07:03:30 +0000

The Cambridge News have a piece today “Landmark case of postie mauled by Rottweiler”:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=436739

By: Tim Bown

Tim Bown — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:08:08 +0000

This cse is extremely interesting to my family and I. My 78 year old father was savaged by a dog in a scrap yard business a couple of weeks ago. He has had to have plastic surgery and a 10 day stay in hospital, which must have cost the NHS/tax payer thousands. Essex police have written to me telling me there is nothing they can do as the incident occured on private land. We went to the local paper, Brentwood Gazette, which gave it headline news. Guess what, now the police are looking into it.
I have still been told there may be little they can do.
The law needs a good ‘kick’ if it does not cover these cases.
This particular dog has bitten three times and caused hospital treatment. One bite was to an Essex Police Dog Handler, a postman and now my father and it is still alive!
T. Bown, Essex

By: Richard

Richard — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:56:32 +0000

MP Angela Smith has just gained permission from Parliament to bring in a Bill to amend the Dangerous Dogs act to cover private property.

The case of the Cambridge postman was mentioned, so it appears the intention is to cover private roads.

The Telegraph has an article on this proposed amendment.

By: C.R. Leedham-Green

C.R. Leedham-Green — Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:22:31 +0000

One has to consider the purpose of the law.
If the postman was going about his business in a
proper way then he is entitled to protection,
and was in an area with public access. If,
implausibly, the postman was in effect trespassing, then he has less protection, being
in a place with no public access.
I live in London; my sister lives in Gazeley lane.

By: Mr Crowley (By Email)

Mr Crowley (By Email) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:16:33 +0000

Thank you for your email concerning the case below. No file has been received from the police and accordingly the CPS has not been asked to provide a charging decision on this case. I am afraid there is no decision to reverse and the reported comments in the newspaper may be somewhat premature at this stage.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:33:04 +0000

I have written to Mr Wilkins, a member of Cambridgeshire Police Authority and a County Councillor:

Mr Wilkins,

I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of Cambridgeshire Police Authority.

I am concerned that Cambridgeshire Police’s corporate awareness of where the law applies to private land to which the public have access is not sufficient. This has been highlighted both in relation to Cambridgeshire Police’s decision not to prosecute in the case of a rottweiller seriously injuring a Cambridge postman (1), and in the way they deal with motor-vehicles being driven and ridden in a dangerous illegal and anti-social manner in private roads and car parks and other public areas.

Where there is a grey area over if the site of an offence is a public area for the purposes of the relevant act I would like to see cases go to court for magistrates or a jury to make that determination rather than police or prosecutors. This is a general suggestion relating to police policy, I believe it is within the remit of the Police Authority.

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 01:20:24 +0000

I have written to Cambridgeshire’s Chief Crown Prosecutor Richard Crowley:

Mr Crowley,

I would like to add my voice to those calling for a reversal of the reported decision made by Cambridgeshire Police not to prosecute those responsible for the dogs which attacked and seriously injured a postman in Gazeley Lane, Cambridge in December 2008. (1)

It has been reported this decision not to prosecute is due to the fact the event occurred on a private road. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs act applies in public places, with public places given a very broad definition. If there is considered to be a grey area as to the if the site of the attack comes under the relevant definition of a public place I believe this ought be left to the courts to decide on and not determined by the police and prosecutors.