UNITED KINGDOM -- A MUM has said any dog which bites a human should be destroyed after her daughter was bitten by a golden retriever.
Vicky Oliver, 42, of Norwich Avenue, Southend, wants the law toughened up after her daughter Jamie-Lee Hicks, nine, was attacked.
It comes after Jamie-Lee went to pet a golden retriever by an icecream van outside her home.
The dog dug its teeth into her arms and belly, leaving her with permanent scars.
Southend Magistrates Court made an order that the dog, called George, be kept on a muzzle and a short lead. But Mrs Oliver, who owns a labrador herself, believes this is not nearly enough, and attacks need to be taken more seriously.
She said: “I’m absolutely disgusted it’s not been given the credibility it should be given. I think any dog should be destroyed regardless of whether it’s a first offence or otherwise.
“Everyone knows dog bites are on the increase and the law needs to be changed to accommodate that.
“As much as I love my dog, if she attacked me or somebody else then there would be no questions asked – and that’s what the law should be.”
She believes it was taken less seriously because the dog was a golden retriever, and would have been treated differently if it was a Staffordshire bull terrier or another breed deemed more likely to bite.
But her daughter was left with wounds which became infected. She suffered recurring nightmares and is now terrified of dogs.
Mrs Oliver said: “Those scars will be there forever, they are that bad. They might fade slightly, but they will always be there as a reminder to her about what’s gone on.
“She even sits there and cries sometimes – but what do you tell a nine-year-old?”
An Essex Police spokesman said the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 relates mainly to four named breeds – pit bull terriers, the Japanese tosa, dogo Argentine and fila Braziliero, or any type bred for fighting purposes.
He added: “However, for any dog considered dangerous, a magistrate can make an order for it to be destroyed or kept under control, at their discretion.”
A spokesman for the Crown Prosecution Service said each case was considered on its merits.
She added: “In all of the circumstances of this case, where a golden retriever was on a lead and there was no indication either the dog had been aggressive in the past or would be in the future, it was felt that applying for the dog to be destroyed could not be justified.”
(Echo News - Sept 8, 2011)
