Gateshead Council V Alex R

[PlopHole]

**** rarley contains dna unless you have a gut problem ie blood in it

I've always wanted to know that! Thanks.

 

[ChrisUK]

someone goes into a shop, and shoplifts it. or someone goes up to someone and threatens them, maybe push them around and roughs them up, and they get a written caution, and told not to do it again.
a dog apparantly poos somehwere, though it cant be proved and seems unlikely and the owner is fined and summonsed for it :shrug:
its good to know our legal system has its priorities right.
what a sh*t country to live in

There's a lot worse believe me but I totally agree. Completely soft on the "real" criminals and no lee-way or common sense used with petty crimes.

As Chas said its all down to the way the offence is written. Sounds unfair to me and I'd defiantly be appealing for the principle more than anything. Where there any witnesses with your encounter with that cretin?

 

[ChrisUK]

**** rarley contains dna unless you have a gut problem ie blood in it

Wrong, your feces contains traces of the chemicals (digestive fluid) as well as cells shed from the lining of your digestive tract which occurs mostly during the peristalsis action of your small intestine.

However it is harder to extract the DNA in the lab due to the other 'c**p' in the specimen such as microbes and waste.

 

[x Alex x]

Cheers for not missing the point Chris 'n chas, the fines got sweet F.A to do with how, why he got out and was roaming around etc.

fine was £30, £50 if i pay now to avoid court, like i said before i rekon this is the scare tactic to get people to pay up..

what should i expect at court? not even sure what other costs i'll get if i do loose, got £0 coming in each month, not even on JS

 

[ChrisUK]

I'd imagine it will be heard at your local magistrates court.

If you do loose you'd be expected to pay court costs (can't remember off the top of my head but not a lot £50-£100ish IIRC).

Just explain it was mitigated circumstances and you have since taken corrective measures stop stop him escaping again. Then tell them about the ignorance of the council employed idiot. And that you were willing to go clean up after your dog.

 

[djedwardsmith]

Either people are missing the point for the sake of arguing with you, or they didn't read what you said.

The main point is that he was willing to go and clean up after this dog. I appreciate the other side of it, in that when people are given a fine then they obviously will try and get out of it. But given the statement given by this council fool, it shows that even he saw the dog was unattended.

 

[Adrian Bravo]

Does the council worker get a commision/bonus for every fine? :chin:

 

[x Alex x]

Either people are missing the point for the sake of arguing with you, or they didn't read what you said.

The main point is that he was willing to go and clean up after this dog. I appreciate the other side of it, in that when people are given a fine then they obviously will try and get out of it. But given the statement given by this council fool, it shows that even he saw the dog was unattended.

i can't work out which it is lol :bang:

the point i wasn't with the dog as he'd escaped is what im hoping will get me out of this, it's the principle more than anything.

after he's got out i doubled the size of the gate which was supposed to keep him in, like i say though i always clear up after him which makes it more annoying

 

[custard]

Either people are missing the point for the sake of arguing with you, or they didn't read what you said.

The main point is that he was willing to go and clean up after this dog. I appreciate the other side of it, in that when people are given a fine then they obviously will try and get out of it. But given the statement given by this council fool, it shows that even he saw the dog was unattended.

so the point stands if you just open the door and let the dog out its fine(not in this case but in general) by your logic

 

[Chas Uno]

Either people are missing the point for the sake of arguing with you, or they didn't read what you said.

The main point is that he was willing to go and clean up after this dog. I appreciate the other side of it, in that when people are given a fine then they obviously will try and get out of it. But given the statement given by this council fool, it shows that even he saw the dog was unattended.

Alex then has to be careful he doesn't jump from the frying pan into the fire. It is also an offence to let your dog roam unattended and off a leash in a public place, whether intentional or not. You risk going from one offence to another.

Try and see it from the point of view of the warden. He's been called out because someone has reported an unattended dog roaming the streets. He's also probably had to deal with previous roaming dogs, many who were roaming because of irresponsible and uncaring owners. Remember that he doesn't know Alex from Adam, so how does he know that Alex isn't yet another irresponsible owner? Answer is he doesn't.

As I already suggested, best bet is to try and contact the CAB for advice. They may well mediate between Alex and the council department, and perhaps some polite enquiries as to why he is being treated so harshly may well get a more favourable outcome than going in all guns a blazing. Perhaps even a polite letter explaining how this was a total one off and that Alfie is otherwise well cared for and loved may turn the tables in Alex's favour.

Don't forget as well that many people complain when the authorities DON'T take action to combat problems on our streets, and here they are doing just that and people still complain. Though it may seem petty to some, roaming dogs and poop on the streets is something many members of the public feel should be dealt with.

Just trying to see both sides here so don't shoot me!

 

[The Beard]

I understand the role of the dog warden to take stray dogs off the street in order to a) safeguard the animal, b) reduce the risk of collision and damage to vehicles and c) to cut down the risk to public health from dog faeces.

If a dog's owners can't be found then the amimal will be taken to the local pound, and eventually put up for adoption.

In Alex's case I would have thought that finding the owners so soon, presumably by means of a tag or chip, would have been enough for the warden and a brief talk to the owner about keeping the dog secure and warned about future fouling would have sufficed.

I would have thought that a prosecution for fouling the footpath would be brought if the offence was witnessed, in this case presumably by the dog warden.

I find it interesting to compare this case with one I am very familiar with. In the middle of December, I think we can all remember what the weather was like then, we saw a mongrel dog running round the area where we live on about 4 seperate occasions. We attempted to catch him another time but to no avail. Eventually, on 16th January this year we finally caught him and later attempted to find out if anyone had reported him missing, but had no joy.

We kept him for just over 4 weeks when suddenly a neighbour who was walking him for us was stopped by a man who said the dog was his. During that month and a few weeks later, he had been seen over an area covering about four square miles. Not only that but we found a woman who claimed her bitch had been impregnated by this animal and produced 10 pups. The gestation period for a medium sized dog is about 3 months which tends to put things in perspective a bit.

However, the "owners" lived on a permanent fairground encampment and pestered the Police, despite being told by the Cops several times that this was a civil matter. We didn't want to give the dog back because of what we had seen and the state in which we found him. Having said that, we had agreed to hand him back if the "owners" could prove he was their animal. To me, them claiming him and admitting to me, and witnesses that ".....he ran away, that's what dogs do." They also admitted he often got out with their other dog who had been found (alive) in a canal and pulled out by the Police.

The Police eventually said he would have to go back and despite the Dog Wardens trying to catch him on at least 2 occasions there would be no action taken against them.

Quite a few people who'd got to know the dog while we had him seem to think that had the "owners" not been technically part of the travelling community, then there would have been no possibility of those people getting the dog back, nor of them avoiding prosecution.

If the offence is allowing the dog to foul the footpath while under your control, I fail to see how you can be found guilty if you weren't with the dog. Where you go from here is up to you, but you may want to plead your case before the Magistrates as you didn't let the dog out, and as it is a very small creature then he obviously found a small gap; which you have of course taken steps to remedy.

At the time the Warden turned up you were out looking for the little git which should show you were looking for the dog and were not careless with him. Perhaps the best course of action might be to plead guilty but with extenuating circumstances.

You could speak to CAB as has already been mentioned, or maybe send a private message to johnw who admittedly hasn't been on here before but is a Magistrate and may be able to advise.

Good luck.

 

[johnw]

The ticket is for "being the person in charge of a dog which had defecated on designated land, namely the grassed area on snow drop close, blaydon did fail to remove the feaces from the land forthwith"

that's word for word what it says, but in the so called "evidence" which is his statement "whilst responding to a report of an alleged dog straying in the snowdrop close area of blaydon, i saw a tri-coloured jack russel type dog foul the grassed area near the entrance of snowdrop close. no one was with the dog it wad straying in the area"

so in his poorly worded statements, one states i'm being charged for being the person in charge of a dog which defecated on designated land, the other stats no one was with the dog.

If its your dog, then you are in charge of it at all times unless you have temporarily given control of the dog to another person. That would be the case if a friend had taken it for a walk with your permission. In this case it escaped and so is still under your control as you allowed it to get out by failing to maintain a suitable enclosure.

The witness statement, which from a legal point of view seems to be very well worded, makes it clear the animal was seen to foul by somebody who will be willing to attend court and give evidence on oath to that effect.

Unless you can wriggle out of it because of a legal error, such as them quoting the wrong statute or bylaw, I don't see a way out of this. If it goes to court there is likely to be a fine of about £50 to 150 depending on which law they use to prosecute. If this is prosecuted by the council, which is highly likely, they are allowed to charge ALL their costs unlike the CPS who only charge a small proportion of their costs. CPS costs, would probably be £35 but could be £85, again depending on which law they prosecute under. Council costs could be several hundred but might be a lot less depending on how your local council deals with these things. Plus the Victim Surcharge of £15

A lot would depend on how the bench view your income. If you earn nothing, then theoretically they can't fine you and would have to impose a conditional discharge and no costs. They will ask how you feed the dog, how you pay the bills, what you do with your spare time, do you own a car, if so who pays for it and so on.

They are highly likely to take the view that if you have cash for a mobile phone, a car, nights out and to properly care for a dog you can afford to pay a fine. Even if you have to do it instalments over a period of 12 months or so.

The last thing to consider is that a court appearance will almost certainly result in a conviction and a record.

 

[AppleSei]

If its your dog, then you are in charge of it at all times unless you have temporarily given control of the dog to another person. That would be the case if a friend had taken it for a walk with your permission. In this case it escaped and so is still under your control as you allowed it to get out by failing to maintain a suitable enclosure.

The witness statement, which from a legal point of view seems to be very well worded, makes it clear the animal was seen to foul by somebody who will be willing to attend court and give evidence on oath to that effect.

Unless you can wriggle out of it because of a legal error, such as them quoting the wrong statute or bylaw, I don't see a way out of this. If it goes to court there is likely to be a fine of about £50 to 150 depending on which law they use to prosecute. If this is prosecuted by the council, which is highly likely, they are allowed to charge ALL their costs unlike the CPS who only charge a small proportion of their costs. CPS costs, would probably be £35 but could be £85, again depending on which law they prosecute under. Council costs could be several hundred but might be a lot less depending on how your local council deals with these things. Plus the Victim Surcharge of £15

A lot would depend on how the bench view your income. If you earn nothing, then theoretically they can't fine you and would have to impose a conditional discharge and no costs. They will ask how you feed the dog, how you pay the bills, what you do with your spare time, do you own a car, if so who pays for it and so on.

They are highly likely to take the view that if you have cash for a mobile phone, a car, nights out and to properly care for a dog you can afford to pay a fine. Even if you have to do it instalments over a period of 12 months or so.

The last thing to consider is that a court appearance will almost certainly result in a conviction and a record.

excellent post that surely ends the thread debate

 

[ChrisUK]

This thread has put me off getting a dog .... ever.

 

[djedwardsmith]

so the point stands if you just open the door and let the dog out its fine(not in this case but in general) by your logic

If you then offer to go and clean it up but are rebuffed in your attempts, why should you have to pay a fine for your dog messing?

The issue of control over the dog is, as was said, a whole other issue.

 

[karbineftw]

It's a dogs life so expect some ruff justice, but then again I may be barking up the wrong tree. I don't want to throw a spaniel in the works...

Right, I'm off for walkies...........

You sir, make me want to punch small children :devil:

 

[custard]

If you then offer to go and clean it up but are rebuffed in your attempts, why should you have to pay a fine for your dog messing?

The issue of control over the dog is, as was said, a whole other issue.

because im sure everyone caught not cleaning up after their dog would say the same

 

[Garree001]

because im sure everyone caught not cleaning up after their dog would say the same

But it was a dog warden who picked the dog up - how could they say anything other than the dog was missing

 

[ChrisUK]

:yeahthat:

What happened to innocent until prooven guilty.

 

[custard]

:yeahthat:

What happened to innocent until prooven guilty.

the dog waived it by giving two barks