- August 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm #61937.dodger.Member
Not sure if it’s already been mentioned but i can’t seem to find anything.
Police dog mauling appeal
31 Jul 2008 09:05
A MAN left with ‘life-threatening injuries’ after he was mauled by a police dog has won the right to challenge a judge’s decision that Kent Police used ‘reasonable force’ on him.
Nicolas Roberts, 58, of Minor Canon Row, Rochester, needed 141 stitches and an eight-day hospital stay to recover from the wounds inflicted by the German Shepherd in September 2002.
He was bitten on the neck near his jugular vein and suffered a tear to his left thigh which exposed a major artery, as well as sustaining other, more minor, injuries to various parts of his body.
He says he still suffers nightmares and flashbacks to the incident, and has been unable to work.
Judges at London’s Civil Appeal Court were told that Mr Roberts has racked up a £30,000 legal bill fighting his case for compensation against the Chief Constable of the Kent Police.
Mr Roberts’ claim is that the dog was set on him without justification after police stopped him on suspicion of drink-driving and asked him to step out of his car.
However, the Kent force has always insisted that Mr Roberts refused to give a breath test, resisted arrest and provoked the dog into attacking him by hitting it.
Four charges were brought against Mr Roberts – including causing criminal damage to the police dog – but all were later dropped or dismissed.
The case was heard at Canterbury County Court in November, where Judge Mitchell dismissed his damages claim.
But last week Lord Justice Dyson granted Mr Roberts permission to appealAugust 21, 2008 at 2:39 pm #90390kizkiznobiteMember
will await to see what others think before i post my thoughts…but i guess there is more to this than that reported….August 21, 2008 at 2:50 pm #90391*Nick*Member
No matter what the reasons and/or build-up to the incident aren’t police dogs supposed to have a perfect “off” or “out” ?August 21, 2008 at 2:58 pm #90392kizkiznobiteMember
uhuh and attacking the ‘jugular’ area :-\ ??? and police dont set a dog on unless they are under death or serious injury threat ….and how could he have provoked dog in an arrest situation if dog under control…and and and ….too bland a statement for both sides for me …
and interesting as ever press use the word ‘mauling’ ….had it been a dangerous armed criminal or lets say a terriorist and the dog had just done the job and caused injury in the process…then mauling would not have been the wrod used i bet…lets face it…dog is under cue…danger is danger and they highly cued to respond whatever…it all a bit iffy …August 21, 2008 at 3:05 pm #90393Prem2PramMember
Without knowing all the facts I wouldn’t like to comment :-XAugust 21, 2008 at 3:09 pm #90394*Nick*Member
It doesn’t appear that the police are refuting the claim that the dog actually did the damage though ???quote :
Over here we call that a “back injury” . Meaning –“I can’t work I’ve hurt my back and there’s not a doctor in the world who can prove I’m lieing”
no offense intended but the British Press is renowned and mocked the world over for outrageous sensationalism—-how did it happen?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.