PIT BULL OWNER'S LEGAL CHALLENGE FAILS(cutting Telegraph by Peter Beal) A pit bull terrier owner today failed in an attempt to challenge the Government's dangerous dogs legislation in the courts. Magistrates in Stockport, Greater Manchester, fined 46-year-old Joseph Graham £300 with £200 costs and ordered the destruction of his eight-year-old American pit bull terrier bitch Tiger after finding him guilty of walking it unmuzzled in a public place. The animal was immediately granted a stay of execution after Graham's solicitor Neville Warburton handed in notice of an appeal. Graham, a former editor of Pit Bull News magazine, of Midland Road, Bramhall, Stockport, said after the hearing he would continue to defy the law by walking the animal and his other American pit bull, a five-year-old dog called Rhino, without muzzles. The ex-soldier, who is registered disabled, had argued in court that the animals were not subject to the Government's 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, introduced after a series of savage attacks. He said the new law referred only to pit bull terrier "types" of dog and his animals were pure-bred American pit bull terriers and had been registered with the American Dog Breeders' Association. He admitted that he at first thought his dogs were covered by the legislation. "But then I read the Act and realised I was mistaken. The term 'type' in the Act does not cover a specific breed." The association's president, Kate Greenwood of Utah, told the court the breed had been established in the US since 1908. But RSPCA chief inspector Jan Eachus said American pit bull terriers, which were introduced to the UK in 1976, were not recognised as a breed by the Kennel Club. Graham said after the case: "There is no justice in the decision. But this is only the first round. It is not over yet. "Both dogs have never shown any signs of being nasty and dangerous. Any law which doesn't take into account the nature of the dog just has to be a nonsense." Pc Kevin Marriott said he interviewed Graham after the alleged offence and asked if he intended seeking to have his two animals - a five-year-old dog and the eight-year-old bitch called Tiger - exempted from the legislation. Graham had told him he intended doing it for the bitch but not the dog because it would mean having to have it castrated. Graham told the court Tiger was registered with the American Dog Breeders' Association as an American pit bull terrier. Until the 1930s the American pit bull and the Staffordshire bull terrier were recognised as the same breed of dog, he said. He admitted he first thought his dogs were covered by the new legislation. "But then I read the Act and realised I was mistaken. The term 'type' in the Act does not cover a specific breed. "It could just as easily encompass a Staffordshire bull terrier, depending on who looks at the dog. I don't know how you would define a type." Mr Michael Homan, of Tooting, south London, a championship show judge of Staffordshire bulls, said it was virtually impossible to distinguish between American pit bulls and Staffordshire bull terriers. But RSPCA chief inspector Jan Eachus said the American pit bull terrier was recognised in this country by the Kennel Club. He said Graham's two dogs had not shown any aggression when he saw them - but that was not necessary for them to fall within the definition of the new law. /cutting ends Click here to return to RSPCA Atrocities index Click here to return to main index REMEMBER BERNICE'S HORRIFIC STORY? |