International Law

Barking mad in Hull

By John Hirst

I am rather confused whether the Humberside Police, Crown Prosecution Service or their dog behaviourist is barking mad, or whether they all are?

A Park Warden claimed my dog Rocky bit him on the ankle.

I was charged with common assault and being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control.

At the last Crown Court hearing, the CPS sought an adjournment to enable them to obtain a dog behaviourist's report in response to the defence dog behaviourist's report and DVD on Rocky following a one to one assessment session. The CPS sought a direction from the Court for me to comply with their request for access to Rocky for their assessment. The Court refused on the ground that the defence had given assurance that access would be allowed. As it happens nobody from the CPS, Police, or their dog behaviourist contacted either me or assessed Rocky in person. Nevertheless, their dog behaviourist prepared a report for the Court!

The opening paragraph of their dog behaviourist's report limits the remit to review and then offer an opinion on the DVD. Is the DVD subject to the provisions of the Dangerous Dog's Act? Does DVD really mean Dangerous Virtual Dog? The mind boggles. This dog behaviourist claims that he specialises in dog communication and that he is a dog listener. I wonder if he offers distant learning courses? Telepathic communication with the subject? If he listened to Rocky I wonder what Rocky told him?

I recall a prison law case whereby a judge gave short shrift to the validity of a psychologist's report where the "risk assessment" was conducted without interviewing the prisoner and based upon the reports of others.

Full post as published by prisonlawinsideout on August 30, 2008 (boomark / email).