Fight For Justice Continues After Midlands Dog Attack Ruling

Japanese Akita To Be Destroyed Following May 2012 Incident

26.11.2013

Legal experts representing a father and daughter viciously injured in a dog attack in the West Midlands have revealed their determination to win justice for the pair, following the conclusion of a trial in relation to the incident.

Simon Hryhoruk and his daughter Amy suffered serious bites and were left needing hospital treatment following the incident in Rushall in May last year, when they were attacked by a Japanese Akita named Diesel.

Wolverhampton Crown Court has now ruled that the animal, which has been impounded for 18 months, will be destroyed.

Nirmal Singh, who was responsible for the dog owned by his son at the time of the incident, pleaded guilty to being responsible for the dog and was fined and ordered to pay costs in relation to the attack but did try to challenge the destruction order for the dog.

However, the challenge was turned down following evidence from the police which stated the dog was unapproachable and constantly aggressive while it was impounded.

Irwin Mitchell’s specialist serious injury lawyers are representing Simon and Amy in their battle for justice over severe physical and psychological trauma caused in the attack.

Commenting on the incident, expert lawyer Katrina Elsey who represents the pair said: “From our work with our clients, we have heard first-hand accounts of how horrific the incident in May last year was.

“The decision to destroy the animal will not have been taken lightly, but it is clear from our client’s accounts and the police that in this case the animal involved was found to be particularly dangerous and vicious.

“Following today’s verdict, we are now working to continue to push forward with the civil claims for Simon and Amy to ensure they get the justice they deserve over the terrible long-term psychological and physical injuries they suffered in that awful attack.”

Katrina added that one of the interesting aspects of the case was the decision to prosecute Mr Singh, despite the dog being owned by his son.

She outlined: “We have said for a long time that the current laws around dog ownership and provisions in place to protect the public from dog attacks are ineffective. Mr Singh was prosecuted as he was deemed to be responsible for the dog at the time of the incident, but the actual owner of the animal has not had to face action.

“While the Government is taking steps to improve dangerous dog regulations including compulsory microchipping, we are disappointed that new measures do not including compulsory licensing and insurance for dog owners.

“This would ensure that the owners of dangerous animals can be quickly identified and also ensure that victims can get the financial support they need to recover from injuries they suffer in such attacks – something which is not always guarantee in these kinds of cases.”