Yesterday the owner of the dogs was given a 16-week suspended sentence for causing suffering to animals.
Why was the owner not locked up the with four mad dogs for life?
1) Apparently there was "insufficient evidence" to prosecute a case of manslaughter.
2) The much-criticised Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 did not apply because:
a) The dogs were not a banned breed under the Act.
b) The attack took place on private property and the dogs were not "out of control in a public place"
I do not understand how a so-called civilised society can do nothing to punish someone obviously responsible for the horrible death of a young lady but can hand down a derisory sentence for the causing suffering to animals.
Am I the only person who finds this
impossible to understand?