Safeguards for Seized dogs.
- par: Alison Green DDaWatch
- destinataire: to whom it may concern
Sam was a staffordshire bull terrier killed by mistake while in the "care" of the Metropolitan Police.
His case has highlighted a number of issues relating to seized dogs that must be dealt with to avoid further tragic deaths. Sam had been seized under section 3 of the dangerous Dogs Act after an incident with a travelling saleman.
On 31st July 2009 Miss Hawes was sentenced by Ealing Magistrates Court; she was ordered to pay %uFFFD500 in compensation and a Destruction Order was made against Sam. A notice of Appeal was immediately lodged at court and the appeal hearing was scheduled for the 29th September at Isleworth Crown Court.
Appearing before the Crown Court, a hopeful owner, expert witness Dr Mugford and prosecuting and defence counsel were gathered and ready to commence proceedings when it was suddenly revealed that Sam had been euthanised on the 26th August 2009. Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. On being told this information in court His Honour Judge Lowen stated that this was in clear contravention of the Act which states that the order shall not take effect until the Appeal is heard. He went on to say that this action was in conflict with those provisions and it was for another court to deal with the consequences. Owner Melanie Hawes was left in court shocked to the core that the dog that she hoped would be coming home had in fact been dead for the past five weeks.
Sam died on 26th August 2009 however his death could easily have been avoided if greater safeguards where in place.
We the undersigned hereby demand that where a dog is ordered to be destroyed by way of court order, no action will be taken without a written statement from the owners legal team stating no appeal has been nor will be heard.
We also demand that bodies of dogs that have died due to any cause, while in the care of the authorities are not routinely disposed of. Instead owners must be notified in writing of the dogs death and allowed the option to reclaim their dogs body and any other items such as collars, within 7 days of reciept of the written notice.
Finally we demand that a "cooling off" period of seven days should apply to dogs whose owners have signed over for destruction. This will allow owners time to take legal advice and withdraw their consent for destruction if they so wish.
His case has highlighted a number of issues relating to seized dogs that must be dealt with to avoid further tragic deaths. Sam had been seized under section 3 of the dangerous Dogs Act after an incident with a travelling saleman.
On 31st July 2009 Miss Hawes was sentenced by Ealing Magistrates Court; she was ordered to pay %uFFFD500 in compensation and a Destruction Order was made against Sam. A notice of Appeal was immediately lodged at court and the appeal hearing was scheduled for the 29th September at Isleworth Crown Court.
Appearing before the Crown Court, a hopeful owner, expert witness Dr Mugford and prosecuting and defence counsel were gathered and ready to commence proceedings when it was suddenly revealed that Sam had been euthanised on the 26th August 2009. Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. On being told this information in court His Honour Judge Lowen stated that this was in clear contravention of the Act which states that the order shall not take effect until the Appeal is heard. He went on to say that this action was in conflict with those provisions and it was for another court to deal with the consequences. Owner Melanie Hawes was left in court shocked to the core that the dog that she hoped would be coming home had in fact been dead for the past five weeks.
Sam died on 26th August 2009 however his death could easily have been avoided if greater safeguards where in place.
We the undersigned hereby demand that where a dog is ordered to be destroyed by way of court order, no action will be taken without a written statement from the owners legal team stating no appeal has been nor will be heard.
We also demand that bodies of dogs that have died due to any cause, while in the care of the authorities are not routinely disposed of. Instead owners must be notified in writing of the dogs death and allowed the option to reclaim their dogs body and any other items such as collars, within 7 days of reciept of the written notice.
Finally we demand that a "cooling off" period of seven days should apply to dogs whose owners have signed over for destruction. This will allow owners time to take legal advice and withdraw their consent for destruction if they so wish.
Sam was a staffordshire bull terrier killed by mistake while in the "care" of the Metropolitan Police.
His case has highlighted a number of issues relating to seized dogs that must be dealt with to avoid further tragis deaths. Sam had been seized under section 3 of the dangerous Dogs Act after an incident with a travelling saleman.
On 31st July 2009 Miss Hawes was sentenced by Ealing Magistrates Court; she was ordered to pay %uFFFD500 in compensation and a Destruction Order was made against Sam. A notice of Appeal was immediately lodged at court and the appeal hearing was scheduled for the 29th September at Isleworth Crown Court.
Appearing before the Crown Court, a hopeful owner, expert witness Dr Mugford and prosecuting and defence counsel were gathered and ready to commence proceedings when it was suddenly revealed that Sam had been euthanised on the 26th August 2009. Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. On being told this information in court His Honour Judge Lowen stated that this was in clear contravention of the Act which states that the order shall not take effect until the Appeal is heard. He went on to say that this action was in conflict with those provisions and it was for another court to deal with the consequences. Owner Melanie Hawes was left in court shocked to the core that the dog that she hoped would be coming home had in fact been dead for the past five weeks.
Sam died on 26th August 2009 however his death could easily have been avoided if greater safeguards where in place.
We the undersigned hereby demand that where a dog is ordered to be destroyed by way of court order, no action will be taken without a written statement from the owners legal team stating no appeal has been nor will be heard.
We also demand that owners of dogs that have died while in the care of the authorities are not routinely disposed of. Instead owners must be notified in writing of the dogs death and allowed the option to reclaim their dogs body and any other items such as collars, within 7 days of reciept of the written notice.
Finally we demand that a "cooling off" period of seven days should apply to dogs whose owners have signed over for destruction. This will allow owners time to take legal advice and withdraw their consent for destruction if they so wish.
signersignerHis case has highlighted a number of issues relating to seized dogs that must be dealt with to avoid further tragis deaths. Sam had been seized under section 3 of the dangerous Dogs Act after an incident with a travelling saleman.
On 31st July 2009 Miss Hawes was sentenced by Ealing Magistrates Court; she was ordered to pay %uFFFD500 in compensation and a Destruction Order was made against Sam. A notice of Appeal was immediately lodged at court and the appeal hearing was scheduled for the 29th September at Isleworth Crown Court.
Appearing before the Crown Court, a hopeful owner, expert witness Dr Mugford and prosecuting and defence counsel were gathered and ready to commence proceedings when it was suddenly revealed that Sam had been euthanised on the 26th August 2009. Apparently the police were unaware that an appeal had been lodged and Sam was already dead. On being told this information in court His Honour Judge Lowen stated that this was in clear contravention of the Act which states that the order shall not take effect until the Appeal is heard. He went on to say that this action was in conflict with those provisions and it was for another court to deal with the consequences. Owner Melanie Hawes was left in court shocked to the core that the dog that she hoped would be coming home had in fact been dead for the past five weeks.
Sam died on 26th August 2009 however his death could easily have been avoided if greater safeguards where in place.
We the undersigned hereby demand that where a dog is ordered to be destroyed by way of court order, no action will be taken without a written statement from the owners legal team stating no appeal has been nor will be heard.
We also demand that owners of dogs that have died while in the care of the authorities are not routinely disposed of. Instead owners must be notified in writing of the dogs death and allowed the option to reclaim their dogs body and any other items such as collars, within 7 days of reciept of the written notice.
Finally we demand that a "cooling off" period of seven days should apply to dogs whose owners have signed over for destruction. This will allow owners time to take legal advice and withdraw their consent for destruction if they so wish.
Voir plus de pétitions:
Vous avez désactivé JavaScript sur votre navigateur. Sans JavaScript, il se peut que notre site Internet ne fonctionne pas correctement.
En signant, vous acceptez les conditions de service de Care2
Vous pouvez gérer vos abonnements à tout moment.
Vous ne parvenez pas à signer cette pétition ?? Faites-le nous savoir.