http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2Flaw-and-order%2F11270101%2FBarrister-cleared-after-her-dog-attacked-a-police-horse.html&ei=LBCGVP3ENYGvU6CXgNgP&usg=AFQjCNE3TDXzXFUWYpf2ZUmS62At3o2i6w&bvm=bv.80642063,d.d24&cad=rja

I've moved this from its previous position, as it was suggested it needed a new thread.  What are your views on this unfortunate incident, and its subsequent court case?

What are your views on this unfortunate incident,

It was an OB failure (recall), maybe with lack of habituation to horses in that park.
.

Shouldn't have gotten to Court - the charges was in no way made out. Out of control - possibly - dangerously out of control? doesn't sound like it to me. The act actually says for that charge that it is an offence for "anyone to allow an unmuzzled ferocious dog to be at large"  (i.e. not under proper control in a public place) and attack, worry, or put in fear any person, horse or other animal in any thoroughfare or public place". Ferocious dog? doesn't sound like he had a documented history of biting anyone and isn't a prohibited breed, and wasn't declared a banned-type so therefore he wouldn't be required to be muzzled  - and you need both parts of the offence i.e. unmuzzled (and an awareness that it should be muzzled) and attack, worry or put fear in another animal or person - for the offence to be made out -  and he appeared to pose no risk to humans since a stranger was able to remove him from the horse without any fear by that stranger that he was going to be bitten by the dog and indeed wasn't, and if the article is accurate he did not have a documented history of attacking others in the past.  Dangerous dog? Nope - he's not, in law.  Crown should've discontinued before trial. Outcome was completely just - and I would be screaming if she'd been found guilty and the dog punished as a result. I think the only reason it got to Court at all is the grey area due to the fact it was a rescue dog that is thought to be trained to attack since that would denote that she should've known he was potentially dangerous and should be muzzled and that is the point the Police obviously couldn't prove.

However... the owner may not have been legally responsible but she was definitely morally culpable in my view - she clearly felt she had a greater level of control over her dog than she did  - and she really should never ever have taken the risk of allowing her dog off the lead with its unclear history, She can assess that he doesn't require a muzzle as he hasn't shown aggression but off the lead? - I don't think you could ever rescue any dog, staffie or otherwise, that had been "trained for fights" and take the risk by letting it off the lead in a public place - no matter how well you train the dog you don't know what its been through or what could trigger poor behaviour or an extreme and unexpected reaction therefore you cannot put your hand on your heart and believe your dog is safe in all possible circumstances - therefore he shouldn't have been off the lead imo- I think she quite possibly had an overly inflated idea of how well she had trained the dog and of exactly how in control of the dog she was.

I just feel sorry for the horse. I think she should be made to pay for the care of the horse's injuries through her insurance, if she hasn't already, since that should still apply irrelevant of the court case.

Just my opinion - don't shoot me if you disagree!

Under the law they had a right to go after the owner for having a dog 'dangerously out of control' as according  the government
"Out of control
Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them
A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:
it injures someone's animal
the owner of the animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal"

So as the dog did injure the horse and the owner couldn't get the dog back her self then under the law it was dangerously out of control.

Then add the fact the friend/nabour claims the owner was given the dog as a rescue that had been trained for fighting you have to ask if its wise for her to be letting to the dog off lead in a park in the first place. The dog probably has a high prey drive and could have been acting towards the horses tail like it may have been trained in its past on a lure or spring pole.

So allthough this was an accident and no doubt the owner is not using the dog like it had been in its past and loves it but for her to know the dog was bred and trained to fight befor she had it yet she leaves if lose in a park around other animals is irresponsible in my opyion and was an accident waiting to happen.

"So as the dog did injure the horse and the owner couldn't get the dog back her self then under the law it was dangerously out of control."

No, she was charged under Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which means that the only way she could've been acquitted is after expert evidence was produced, and believed, at trial which stated that the dog posed no danger to the public. Although the charge is automatic in cases where a dog bites another animal or person under the act its not a strict liability offence where just because the dog bites the owner is automatically guilty - the owner is only guilty if the dog was a) out of control, and b) a danger to the public. She can only have been acquitted on the charge and the other DDAct charge if they provided expert evidence that the dog was not a danger to anyone.  So - out of control in law yes - dangerously out of control in law - no, otherwise she couldn't have been acquitted.