Amy Ponnampalam’s dachshund, Annie, was killed in the attack in November last year, while her other dachshund, Briea, was seriously injured as a result.
The boxer’s owner, John Tomlinson, was due to face charges stemming from the incident in Magistrates’ Court yesterday, but the case was dismissed because prosecutors failed to bring it to court within six months of the offence.
Ms Ponnampalam described the dismissal as a “major operational failure” on behalf of the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Public Prosecutions (DPP).
“I find it unacceptable that this situation could have occurred and hold the Government bodies involved wholly responsible for this outcome,” she said.
“Ensuring that a charge is made and brought to court within the legislated time requirements is the most fundamental of considerations in any judicial proceeding, and it is inexcusable that both the DPP and Department of Environmental Protection have failed in this instance.
“I was absolutely astounded to hear that outcome. I feel incredibly let down. Ms Ponnampalam said she had been assured by animal wardens that they would be handling the case.
“From the start, the animal wardens had control of this case and the DPP were prosecuting on their behalf,” she explained.
Ms Ponnampalam said she spoke to animal wardens and prosecutor Larissa Burgess after the case was dismissed, but was told that the matter would be raised internally at both Government bodies and that she was not permitted to be involved in that process.
She said she had been keen to have the matter go to court and that she had contacted animal wardens twice since giving her witness statement in February to ascertain the progress of the case, but their responses were uninformative.
The animals wardens did not allude to a deadline to which they should have been working.
“This should have been an open and shut case,” Ms Ponnampalam said.
“With eye witnesses and veterinary reports, this case should only ever have been about the sentencing.”
She said she was disheartened by the course of events and that it was “deeply unfortunate that the failure of the Government bodies involved has facilitated this”.
She also expressed concern that the boxer she believes killed her dog remains in the neighbourhood. But she added: “As a victim, it appears that I have no recourse in this matter. I have absolutely no faith that anything will be done.”
Ms Burgess refused to provide The Royal Gazette with any information about the charges that Mr Tomlinson would have faced and declined to comment on the case. Mr Tomlinson could not be reached for comment.
A Ministry of Health, Seniors and Environment spokesman said yesterday that Animal Wardens in this case “discharged their duties as expected and in accordance with established protocols”, while the DPP did not respond to a request for comment by press time last night.
The matter was dismissed when defence lawyer Saul Dismont drew attention to a section of the Criminal Code that stipulates that a prosecution for a summary offence must, unless otherwise expressly provided, begin within a period of six months after the offence is committed.
While prosecutor Ms Burgess disagreed with his interpretation of the section, she conceded that yesterday’s court date was not within that six-month timeframe.
Magistrate Khamisi Tokunbo concluded that the case was “out of time”, dismissed the matter and discharged the defendant.
Mr Tomlinson owned three boxers, which were able to get on to Ms Ponnampalam’s Smith’s property last November because the electric fencing on his property was not maintained.
One of his two male boxers is believed to be responsible for carrying out the fatal attack.
Ms Ponnampalam was at work when she received a call from Endsmeet Animal Hospital informing her of the incident.
A neighbour saw the boxer mauling the second dog and shooed it away, but arrived on the scene too late to save Annie.
(Royal Gazette - June 18, 2015)
Earlier:
No comments:
New comments are not allowed.