Court Dismisses Charges: Not Controlling Dog
Ms Gina Camaro, 47, of Paget appeared in Magistrates Court this morning [Aug 31] facing a charge of not controlling her dog and allowing her dog to cause damage to another dog.
However, after considering the facts as presented by the Crown, Senior Magistrate Archie Warner dismissed the charge.
The evidence presented by the Crown was that in May 2012, her pit bull dog had been seen wandering on Harbour Road Paget. A passerby stopped, got control of the pit bull, and took the pit bull onto someone else’s property.
Once there, this person was met at the door by the homeowner. The homeowner’s smaller terrier dog barked at the pit bull and the pit bull reacted by grabbing and attacking the smaller dog.
The people managed to separate the dogs by beating the pit bull until it released the terrier. The terrier was taken to the vet and the SPCA were called to get the pit bull.
On investigation, Ms Camaro was found to be the owner of the pit bull, and she was informed and was subsequently charged. She appeared in this morning’s Plea Court.
The Senior Magistrate said that the charge was wrong as it was clear that a stranger had taken control of the dog had then taken him onto someone else’s property, and that while in that new situation, the pit bull had attacked another dog.
He said that Ms Camaro had played no part in this and could not be accused of not having control when it was clear that someone else did and that someone else had acted whilst in control of the dog.
The Magistrate asked if the charge had been vetted by the DPP and he was assured that it had been. Saying that the evidence did not support the charge, the Magistrate dismissed the case, telling Ms Camaro that she was free to go.
Read More About
Category: All, Court Reports, Crime, News
What an absolutely idiotic conclusion.
You see a dog (a pit bull, an inherently dangerous dog) walking around in public. You attempt to take control of it, to prevent damage either to the dog or to others who come into contact with it. And from then on the owner has no more responsibility for letting the dog out. What sense does any of that make?
I guess anyone that sees a dog should just leave it to wander. Call the police and let them handle it.
“The evidence presented by the Crown was that in May 2012, her pit bull dog had been seen wandering on Harbour Road Paget.”
Isn’t the point here that if the owner had properly controlled her dog, the dog would not have been in a position to be taken to the wrong house…. and thus attack the smaller dog…
Archie Warner nneds to retire!!!
Take a deep breath and think about it, people! Whilst I agree that Archie is often too soft, in this case he is right. She cannot be charged with not controlling her dog because he attacked another dog while with someone else. It’s not her fault this person took the dog onto someone else’s property and there happened to be another dog there…HOWEVER, it IS her fault that her dog was wandering unsecured. It sounds like it’s the DPP’s fault for charging her with the wrong thing.
The DPP needs to go back to the books and charge her with something else-like not properly securing an animal or something; something that fits the situation better. It’s clear they charged her with the wrong thing so you can’t blame the judge for that!!!
So allowing a pitbull to roam the streets is absolved by someone else – unknown – having alleged control of the dog – clearly not!
I wonder what he would have said if the pitbull had killed a child at the house. Dog owners need to take responsibility for their dogs on the loose and the law should support that for public security!
I wonder what he would have said if this was not a pitbull. I am not really a fan of big dogs but it seems to me like they blow up pitbull stories more than any other breed. Sounds like many people are a bit bias to me.
And why do you think that might be?
it doesnt matter what breed of dog this was. The fact is the dog was not in control, by its owner or the person that found it straying. It was OBVIOUSLY straying which means its owner was clearly not keeping their dog in a responsible manner. The person that found the dog really should not have taken it onto someone else’s property. You have found a dog that you do not know so you take it onto a property you do not know. That is just crazy. You could have a dog that hates children, hates other animals, and you have walked onto an unknown property potentially putting others in danger!!
Hold the dog, call the police. The police know how to get in touch with the animal wardens. Let them come deal with the dog. This is a sad case that Mr. Warner didnt quite get right.
I agree. It doesn’t matter what kind of dog it is.
WTF??? The owner was clearly not in control of the dog…. mercy me, these courts…
obviously the dog is not human aggressive coz a STRANGER walked up to him and took CONTROL of him…secondly if the stranger had not taken him into another strangers yard none of this we would be debating…i think who ever took control of the dog they should have taken the dog to spca for id purposes….also the charges that where laid were totally incorrect…if she had been charged with allowing her dog to ROAM…then she had to be found guilty but she was charged with Control of which she obviously didnt….all in all the pit was jus out on his daily exercise and minding his own business on his way home…i dont think he was out hunting …dont blame the breed.
He was out minding his own business, without its owner, and not on a lead. That is the point. Not under anyone’s control. Which is illegal.
@Mad Dawg: You’re wrong, as usual. The DPP charged her with the wrong thing. She should be charged with not properly securing her dog-not ‘charge of not controlling her dog and allowing her dog to cause damage to another dog’. The dog was found by this person who decided to take it onto this other person’s property-that’s not her fault. That person was then in control of the dog-not her, so how can she be held responsible for that part of it?
If the dog just wandered into the yard on his own, it would be a different scenario but he was taken there by someone-I assume to ask if they recognized the dog. The person should have just secured the dog and called the warden-not take it all over the neighbourhood not knowing anything about the dog or his temperament-that was plain dumb.
She shouldn’t get off scot-free but that’s up to the DPP-they need to charge her with something more appropriate.
In any case, the judge still should have given her a stern talking to about securing this animal…
It is illegal to have your dog out, unsupervused, and not on a lead, isn’t it?
In other words, not under control?
In fact, Mayan, looking at the Dogs Act, you are definitely wrong. Section 19 is the part dealing with allowing a dog to stray, out of control, as happened here. Section 20 is the part that deals with the procedure once a stray dog is found or seized. There was, evidently, a breach of Section 19.
So I’m right, as usual.
And if a person were to be attacked what would the outcome be? Your dog, your responsibility.
So the dog’s owner is female and the case is dismissed. Sounds rather similar to the “professor” who smuggled in cannabis and was also let go. Yet male cruise vistors who get a welcome from fido get the usual fine and convicion. Is there a pattern here?
I wonder if this is the same dog that was wondering Harbor road when my friend wass taking a morning stroll and got chased by a pit bull and had to jump on top of someone’s van to avoid being attached by the dog until someone spotted her! This is ridiculous! The OWNER should be held accountable for the dog being left to wonder in the first place! Make sure your dog is secured in a cage or a proper chain when left alone. Its not fair to the innocent people walking/cycling or running.
Mr. Warner needs to go! The dog was wandering. It was not secured on or in its owner’s property. Clearly the owner is RESPONSIBLE! The passerby who collected the dog, while making the dumb decision to walk it to someone’s door where another dog was present, should be thanked for securing the dog. @Zombie: the police do not handle situations such as this, at least that’s what I was told once by the police after making a call about a dog wandering the streets. The government warden is pathetic, so don’t call him either! He should go, right along with Warner! How this judge continues to hear cases, is beyond anyone’s comprehension!
A wandering pit bull and no charge!!! Anything could have happened!! So now the public knows it’s ok to let your dog wander, now we have to carry weapons in Gina Cameros neighborhood to protect ourselves from her damn dog.
Oh yah everyone should know the dog catchers telephone number.
Pit bulls are friendly, so just tell him “down boy! sit! sit!!” put a leash on him and walk from house to house and ask is this your dog? Well, well I can picture Chevy Chase, Steve Martin… Lets have a dog party at Gina’s Harbour Road Paget,
So now by rights, just so both parties go free take the damn dog to Archie’s!!!
The type of dog is irrelevant here. The fact is that it was a dog that was not secured and it attacked another dog. What’s sad to me is that had it been reversed, and someone brought a smaller straying dog onto the pit bulls property, she probably would have been charged just because it was a pit bull.
The responsibility is on the owner for allowing the dog to stray. I don’t care what type of dog it is.
This case needs to be revisited perhaps under different charges.
I hate to say it but if the owner had been male I would hazard a guess that Archie Warner would’ve found other charges to apply
I’m also curious what the response here would be if every instance of the word pit bill was replaced with poodle. Bernews that may be an interesting social experiment
There may be a reason why the dog was loose. It might have escaped & gone AWOL. That still does not relieve the owner of responsibility. The well intentioned finder of the dog should have called the SPCA directly instead of searching for the owner. JMO.
Everyone gets so up tight about dogs, and taking the owners to court, why can’t we pass a law that if someone’s
Derelict (we have enough of them) child is breaking the law we take the parents to court, or put them down. Personally I have never met a dog I don’t like, people and their children that is another story. Why don’t parents need a license to have more children than they can afford or room to house.
Ms. Camaro did not even have to pay for veterinarian costs to the other dog who was merely guarding his own home??? Are the Judge and Ms. Camaro personal friends or what?
Bingo.
Obviously most of you missed the point. The magistrate never said she was not guilty of any offence, just not the one she was charged with. It is not his job to change the charge that is the DPP’s job, so blame him.
Well despite the conclusion of the trial, what’s awkward is that all the details are incorrect. I love sub-par reporting almost as much as I love sub-par law and order!
Wrong charge. Case closed..
She should have been charged with allowing her dog to wonder off her property. Or not properly securing her dog or something like that…