6:00am Wednesday 18th March 2009
A FURIOUS father has hit out at dangerous dog laws which he claims are confusing and ineffective.
His four-year-old daughter Molly Conyer-James was left with
horrific facial wounds after being attacked by a Scottish terrier while
at a barbecue in Noctorum on May 10 last year.
She was taken to Alder Hey Children’s Hospital for treatment
to injuries that included a severed tear duct, a hole in the cheek that
could fit an adult’s thumb, and tearing to the lower eyelid and
mouth.
The dog's owner later accepted responsibility for the injuries and
was found guilty of owning a dangerous dog not kept under control.
He was ordered to keep the dog on a lead and muzzled when out in public.
But Molly’s father, Martin, is angry that it has taken almost
a year for the court to deal with the incident, which has left his
daughter terrified of dogs.
He now wants a review of the "confusing" laws governing dangerous dogs.
He told the Globe: "I understand that the sentence would have been more severe if the dog was a Staffordshire bull terrier.
"There is such confusion over dog laws. Are there future plans to address the dangerous dog laws?
"I admit the injuries would have been more severe if it was such a
dog, however this does not undermine Molly’s injuries and a
sterner sentence would have ensured public safety.
"It was luck that prevented Molly’s eye being damaged. However this has affected her view on dogs.
"Two weeks ago, Molly was walking with her mum when she noticed a dog, on a lead, walking towards her.
"She found the safer solution, without warning, to run across a busy road to avoid this dog."
Are dog laws safe enough? Add your comments.
http://www.wirralglobe.co.uk/news/4210128.My_daughter_could_have_lost_her_sight/