Supreme Court justice agrees to give owner another chance to state her case
Sometimes justice goes to the dogs, like this week when B.C. Supreme Court Justice Doug Halfyard spared the life of a couple of half-breeds.
Zack, a German shepherd cross, and Chloe, a black Labrador cross, were seized Jan. 6 in Nanaimo, declared dangerous dogs July 9 by the provincial court and ordered destroyed.
But owner Elaine Cameron appealed, begging Halfyard to commute the death sentence.
Cameron argued that the pair of pets had been wrongly condemned for attacks on other dogs because of a misunderstanding that led to her being out of the courtroom for much of their trial, which hampered their defence.
Surprisingly, on Tuesday, Halfyard agreed.
"I conclude that if Ms. Cameron had had the opportunity to present her case in the way she would have done if she had been present throughout the hearing, the trial judge might not have made the destruction order," he wrote.
Halfyard continued gravely: "In my opinion, there is a risk that a miscarriage of justice will occur if this appeal is not allowed. Moreover, under our law, justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done."
Even if you're a dog.
I couldn't help remembering a celebrated decision by the late Supreme Court Justice Doug Hogarth, who died in 1996 after a notable career.
With his eloquent 1992 judgment, Hogarth saved Robbie, a pure bred Scottish collie, from imminent execution.
The treasured family pet -- accused of nipping "the right gluteus maximus" of a woman in Langley Township -- was apprehended in April 1991 after "a dogfight" between its owners and animal control officers.
The family robustly protested their mute pooch was innocent. They were told he would be summarily executed if they didn't shut up.
"No lineup, photo or otherwise for Robbie," Hogarth lamented, "no charge, no dramatic readings of the Canine Charter of Rights and Freedoms, no plea, no trial, no application of the ancient and historic presumption of innocence, no appeal to the majesty of the Court of Appeal: guilt or innocence undetermined, Robbie faced the ignominy of almost immediate oblivion.
"Thus, Robbie was taken to the Langley Pound which, in the eyes of some, at least Robbie, is a far cry from the warmth, solicitude and understanding of home and hearth and which to him was indeed the equivalent of a canine Gulaag."
The family, like Cameron, insisted that not only shall every dog have his day, but their dog shall have his day in court. And they found the province's senior trial bench has its share of sentimental dog lovers.
Hogarth concluded Robbie was not the vicious culprit -- he had been at home "conducting himself with the essence of canine decorum, sober as a judge." Then he took aim at the Langley animal control bylaw.
"At first glance one assumes that this is a sort of 'War Measures Act' for Municipalities," he scoffed. "Within the context of the present case, one has visions of 'The Great Dog Insurrection of '88: British Bulldogs, German Shepherds, Russian Wolfhounds and the like, huddled in secret kennels presided over by an imperious Pekinese, plotting to overthrow the lawful authorities by force, while hounds in packs roam the highways and byways of the Defendant Township striking terror into the hearts of the citizens, ripping babies to shreds and the like."
Hogarth declared the dangerous-dog sections invalid.
But he advised Robbie to "apply to my judgment the immortal words of Christopher Morley that 'no one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as a dog does,' and he might well bear in mind that the common-law only allows a dog one bite before he can be condemned."
These two mutts in Nanaimo should take similar note as they head back to provincial court for a second hearing.
imulgrew@vancouversun.com
We assume that if a dog only gets one bite, it would be a bite out of a human... at the very least!!
We'd also like to know: were those two dogs in BC held in the pound all that time?
We'd also like to know: were those two dogs in BC held in the pound all that time?
1 comment:
Very entertaining comment! You have just provided readers with an explanation of what is happening to Brindi and her owner. Thank you and have a nice day!!!
Post a Comment