Parents speak out after dog attack

Lee-Anne Harvey and Alan Foster's one-year-old daughter, Paige, required stitches after she was bitten on the face by a family friend's dog.

But when her parents reported the matter to the police, they were told no action could be taken against the pet.

Miss Harvey said a police officer informed them the animal - believed to be a Jack Russell - was not covered under the Dangerous Dogs Act and the incident had not taken place when the dog was out of control in a public place. She was told the incident was not a criminal offence and if she wanted to take the matter further she would have to start civil proceedings.

Miss Harvey, of Greatwood Avenue, told the Herald: "I was appalled and I've lost all faith in the legal system. Would I have had to have lost my daughter for them to take action?"

Paige was with her grandmother at a house on Rombalds Drive, Skipton, on Saturday when the incident occurred.

It is thought the animal went for Paige as she ate a biscuit.

After attending Skipton General and Airedale Hospitals, Paige was transferred to Bradford Royal Infirmary for treatment for wounds to her cheek and lips.

Miss Harvey said they had been extremely worried.

She added: "She's been brave. It's not just the fact the dog has bitten her, it's the ordeal she has been through and she's not even two yet."

Paige was readmitted to hospital on Tuesday after her blood sugar levels dropped - which could be due to her ordeal.

Mr Foster, who lives on North Parade, said his daughter might be left with scarring and possible nerve damage. He added that staff on Paige's hospital ward said they had treated five children over two days, who had all been involved in dog attacks.

Paige's parents said they now wanted to warn other people that it could happen to their children.

Miss Harvey said: "And they need to know that if it happens nothing would be done by the police because nothing can be done."

Sergeant Paul Cording, from Skipton Police, said officers had spoken to Paige's parents and had also given advice to the dog's owners.

He said a criminal offence had not been committed and added: "If they want to seek compensation for injuries they will have to go through civil proceedings."

This week a spokeswoman for DEFRA (Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) said they were undertaking a review of the dangerous dogs legislation.

She said: "The Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits four types of dog that had been identified as bred specifically for fighting. The Act also makes it an offence to allow any type or breed to be dangerously out of control in a public place, or in a private place where it has no right to be. Our conclusion is that parts of the law - particularly with regard to dog attacks in the home - may be in need of reform.

"For example, a court cannot fine or imprison the person responsible for a dog when an attack takes place in the home, whereas it has this option if the attack is in a public place.

"We will need to consult widely with the police, animal welfare organisations and children's charities before any proposals can be put before parliament."

The spokeswoman added that incidents on private premises could be covered under The Dogs Act 1871.

Under this act, anyone can make a complaint to the magistrates' courts that a dog is dangerous and it can lead to the dog being put down.

She continued: "In addition, where an attack has taken place on private premises, it may be possible for a person who has been attacked by a dog to initiate civil proceedings to claim damages on the basis that the person owning or controlling the dog was negligent.

"Where a person has been invited onto premises by the occupier, then that occupier may become liable for any injury suffered by the visitor under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957."