9 Months Locked up Under Dangerous Dogs Law - Now Duke, the Lurcher Cross, is Back Home
Nine long months spent being held at a secret kennels has lead to hollow victory for cross breed Duke after a Judge found him not guilty of being a “pit bull type” and ordered he be returned to his owner. Six year old Duke was seized along with his owners other dog, Duchess, in July last year under the flawed Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Duchess, who at the time had a litter of young puppies, was later released however Duke was not so lucky.
Dukes owner, John McGowan had consistently stated that his dog was not a pit bull type and was actually a lurcher cross mastiff that he had owned since Duke was a young pup. As the burden of proof is reversed using this piece of legislation, it was a matter for the legal team for the defence to prove Duke’s appearance was not that of a “pit bull type”.
During the two-day court hearing, two breed identification experts appeared for the prosecution, both of whom stated Duke was a banned type. Neither of these experts took down all Dukes measurements instead leaving some blank. Both experts stated in court that Duke did not conform in all ways but claimed he still filled a “substantial number of characteristics” required by law.
Evidence put forward from the defence included their own breed identification report, which stated that although Duke did conform in some ways he was far short of a “pit bull type”. However while being identified for the defence during his incarceration Duke was found to be in worryingly bad condition and an independent vet report was sought on the matter. Duke was transferred to another kennel and a request to the RSPCA has been made, asking that they look into the matter. After hearing evidence from both sides the court retired for two and a half hours before returning the verdict “Not Guilty”. Less than 24 hours later a delighted Duke was reunited with his owner.
A delighted John said
“It’s been a harrowing 9 months for all of us and I am over the moon that Duke is back home. It’s worrying that so many innocent dogs are being caught up in this legislation. If it really helped look after people then I would be all for it but it doesn’t. While my dog has been held other dogs owned by irresponsible owners have been involved in incidents. The thousands spent on charging me could have been better spent. We need the DDA scraped and instead focus on the bad owners.”
