Court Order to Surrender Dog

CaoimheSquee

I am not in any affiliated with these people, nor know them at all, but this was just shared on my facebook newsfeed, and, if taken at face value sounds awfully sad and unfair.
<snip - petitions not allowed on Boards>
"Opened on July 23, 2015

So as of 22/07/2015 a judge in the Strokestown court ordered I surrender my harmless dog to be put asleep. She a loving family dog who my 2 kids totally adore. He listened to a neighbour who said the dog barks all day and all night constantly when she doesn't. The neighbour who accused the dog of this had no video evidence or recordings to even back up his story yet the judge favoured with them.

I will be trying to appeal this decision tomorrow in Co.Roscommon we appealed it today and it will be heard in court on 13/10/2015.

#MERCY4MIA

PLEASE SHARE AS THIS DECISION IS UNFAIR."

It has almost 32,000 signatures already.

An interesting move for all the people who come on here querying barking dogs; I certainly never realised this outcome was possible and more so - if what she says is true - without any evidence needed.

adelcrowsmel

Surely that can't be true that a judge would order a dog put to sleep for barking - I always assumed this would only happen where a dog was dangerous and had been proven to attack/bite someone.

CaoimheSquee

It's an odd one all right. Also the fact that the judge seems to be just going on someone's version of events also and saw no evidence.

Nody

I'd say there is a lot more to the story that's not being shared or a very odd judge...

bucketybuck

Seen that on my own facebook.

Didn't believe for one second that I was getting the full story.

RentDayBlues

I think this is definitely an example of "there are two sides to every story"

Saw this on my Facebook feed and while I feel for the people involved there is no way the story is as clear cut as she is telling it.

DBB

Major, MAJOR pinch of salt needed her, I think.
I can guarantee there's more going on here than we're being told by the dog's owner.
District Court judges have a lot of avenues to explore before ordering the destruction of the dog, so if (if) it's true that he went straight for the hatchet, the owner has a strong base from which to appeal.
But if what the owner says is true re the destruction order, I'd bet my bottom dollar that the other avenues have already been explored, or there's something else very salient to the judge's decision that we're not being told.

tk123

There has to be more to it (isn't there always?!) because they're implying it went straight to court without warning?

It reminds me of a situation in our area that I've posted about before. Guy has an akita (mentioning breed to give an idea of the size/power) off lead and unmuzzled in the park that's attacking the other dogs. People approached him and asked him nicely to keep her on lead which he ignored, community garda became involved (i think they just happened to be cycling around the park one afternoon after the dog attacked and approached by owners?), people then started contacting community garda, warnings issued and ignored and last I heard a summons. The guard there said he was going to arrange a destruction notice but the people complaining begged him not to! This has all gone on over maybe 18 months so didn't happen overnight!

Dyr

Plenty of odd judges in this country, especially out in the sticks

antocann

this is my sisters dog and i can confirm the information giving is correct ,
there has been an appeal lodged and will be heard in October,

DBB

antocann wrote: »

this is my sisters dog and i can confirm the information giving is correct ,
there has been an appeal lodged and will be heard in October,

Is there any explanation from the judge, or your sister's legal representation, how the judge has given an order which is not provided for in law?
The Control of Dogs Act 1986 lists a number of options for a judge to choose, but a direct order to euthanase the dog is not one of them. They can't just make punishments up as they go along, they've got to stick to what the law allows.
Sorry, but whilst I don't disbelieve the owner's fb posts, not at all, we're still not getting the full story.

TallGlass

antocann wrote: »

this is my sisters dog and i can confirm the information giving is correct ,
there has been an appeal lodged and will be heard in October,

I assume the order to surrender the dog and people are assuming the dog will be put to sleep.

A court would order the destruction of the animal or something along them lines, you won't be ask to surrender an animal.

Either way I call BS on this add with the fact it massively lacking any legal information from why this is before the courts to act/offense the judge is using to have the animal destroyed.

DBB

TallGlass wrote: »

A court would order the destruction of the animal or something along them lines, you won't be ask to surrender an animal.

Actually, amongst the list of actions the judge is permitted to take in a nuisance barking case, is that the judge can order the dog to be surrendered to the warden, who may then treat the dog as he/she would any other surrendered dog.
In other words, the warden can either rehome it, or euthanase it. But the latter is not upon judge's direct orders.
The thing with nuisance barking cases is that they simply can't get as far as court without a reasonably involved process designed to seek a peaceful resolution between owner and aggrieved neighbours. The process is designed to try to avoid court if at all possible.
It isn't a case of the owner getting a summons out of the blue, only to be told their dog must be surrendered. So yes, more to this story than we're hearing!

Edited to add: a judge can order euthanasia in cases of dog attacks on humans or livestock, but not in nuisance barking cases.

DBB

On reflection, I think it's probably not a good idea to be discussing a case that is still open, for all intents and purposes, as it's under appeal.
Sorry to have to close the discussion.
When the case closes, if anyone can link us to the full story, please let me know and we'll re-open this thread.
Thanks,
DBB