Man fined over dog attack

A man whose dogs mauled and dragged a woman in the streets outside his Bodden Town home has been ordered to pay a fine of $1,200 or serve a prison sentence of five weeks.

Samuel Marcus Small appeared before the Summary Court on Wednesday, 20 July, where prosecutor Orrett Brown outlined the events of the day of the attack on 22 April last year.

“The victim was walking along the street when she was attacked by the defendant’s dogs, which bit her in the legs, back and shoulder and dragged her in the streets as she tried to escape,” said Brown. “Eventually, the defendant heard the calls for help and was able to get the dogs off the victim after multiple attempts.”

Brown added, “In a statement under caution, the defendant told officers that on the day of the incident the dogs were chained, and some unscrupulous person must have released them.”

Small, 55, was charged with a single count of having a dangerous dog out of control – to which he had pleaded guilty on a previous occasion. The dogs were described as ‘mixed breed’.

According to the Animals Law, a conviction of such an offence could result in a fine of up to $4,000 and/or imprisonment of up to six months.

Magistrate Vanessa Allard, who presided over the sentencing hearing, was told that this is the second time Small’s dogs had attacked a person.

“The first time was under a similar set of circumstances, where both dogs attacked a passerby who was walking on the street,” said Brown. “There was an admission of guilt, and the court choose to [not record a conviction].”

When presenting his sentencing submissions, Brown urged Allard to take a view that, despite the lack of a recorded conviction, the first attack should be viewed as an aggravating factor.

“It should be noted that both incidents occurred relatively close together; in fact, a matter of months apart,” said Brown. “This would suggest not only a failure to… heed the relevant warnings, but perhaps an overall disregard for those warnings.”

Small’s attorney, Phillip Ebanks, told the court that while there is no denying the previous attack, the circumstances behind both incidents were vastly different and should be viewed as “largely separate, despite the similarities”.

“Mr. Small did, in fact, learn from the last incident. He tethered the dogs as per the instructions of the animal control officers, among other suggestions which were presented to him,” said Ebanks. “This is not a case of a deliberate attack – not that the other incident was because it certainly wasn’t – but this is a case where, after having been given guidance and putting those teachings into practice, some unknown and unscrupulous person released the dogs.”

During the sentencing hearing, Small, and the wider court, learned that both dogs had been put down by animal control officers, 10 months after he surrendered them – which left him visually shocked.

“These animals came into the life of Mr. Small through his stepchildren,” said Ebanks. “He cared for them, and treated them as his own, because they were not part of his family.”

Ebanks, who had hoped to argue for the safe return of the animals to Small, said the animal control officers had “usurped the court’s authority” by putting down the animals.

“One would think that where a matter is clearly being investigated by the police and there are charges that are likely to be filed, decisions such as putting down an animal would be left to the court, who by law has the proper authority and discretion to decide, not just the fate of the animals, but that of the animal owners,” said Ebanks in response to Allard’s question on why he believed the court had been usurped.

When returning her sentence, Allard told Small this matter was particularly concerning given the proximity between both incidents.

“What we have here are two occasions within months apart of each other… and both have ended up before the courts,” said Allard.

She cautioned Small that if he were to acquire another dog, he should be extremely cautious to ensure there are proper safety measures in place, noting that she did not have the power to ban him from animal ownership.

Allard dismissed a $500 compensation claim by the victim, stating that the requested funds had not been independently verified, that her medical expenses were fully covered and she was paid full salary while on leave for three months.

Allard also noted that the victim had the route of civil proceedings available to her.