Lamont, Bryan

Bryan Lamont was convicted in July 2001 of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place so causing injury.

Mr Lamont received a £100 fine, a £2,552 compensation order, a destruction order in respect of the dog, and an order for payment of destruction costs.

The CCRC received an application for review of the destruction order in April 2004.

The subject of the review was “Dino,” an Alsatian.

In January 2001, Dino aggressively attacked another dog in a park and then bit the owner of the other dog who had tried to intervene.

At the time, it was argued this was out of character and that Dino had never previously attacked another dog or injured a person.

It was nonetheless found that Dino represented a danger to the public.

The Magistrates’ Court ruled that the dog was unsafe, could repeat the incident, and that therefore Mr Lamont should be issued with a destruction order.

Pending destruction, Dino was not handed over to the authorities but stayed in the care of Mr Lamont.

It was possible therefore for Mr Lamont to show that over the three years of appeal processes, Dino had not behaved aggressively again and did not represent an escape risk.

Mr Lamont argued that this demonstrated Dino was not a danger to the safety of the public.

During review, the CCRC noted authority for the proposition that post-conviction behaviour could be relevant to reconsidering a sentence. Mr Lamont’s evidence was also sufficiently “new”.

The CCRC referred the destruction order in September 2004.

The Crown Court quashed the destruction order in October 2004.

A contingent destruction order was put in place on the condition that Mr Lamont keep Dino under proper control (with a provision of eight measures to ensure this).