Council says sorry for dog ban blunder

COURT chiefs have apologised for a blunder which meant a dangerous dog was free to maul 12 children in a playground rampage when it should have already been put down.

Marley the Staffordshire Bull Terrier had already attacked children and a destruction order had been made early last year.

As irresponsible owner Claire Neal was jailed for four years earlier this week, it emerged she was also banned from having dogs.

Now it can be revealed that the order issued by magistrates for the dog to be put down had failed to stipulate who should carry out the destruction – and so no one did.

Four weeks after Neal’s appeal against the order was thrown out, Marley savaged youngsters in a Blyth play park in horrific scenes.

Sentencing Neal, a judge at Newcastle Crown Court laid the blame squarely on her shoulders.

But now, after we asked court bosses to explain why the destruction order was not enforced, meaning the dog was still with Neal and able to strike again, they have apologised.

A HM Courts and Tribunals Service spokesperson said: “We apologise sincerely for the mistake that was made in this case and our deepest sympathies are with the victims of these awful attacks.

“We are urgently investigating why this order was not carried out, and will not hesitate to take action on any failings that come to light.”

A dog destruction order was made at South East Northumberland Magistrates’ Court on February 8, 2016. Northumbria Police and DEFRA were notified of the outcome. An appeal by Neal was lodged, but dismissed on April 22. This meant the original destruction order remained in place and an update to the police was provided.

However the order that was issued did not stipulate who should carry out the destruction.

A police spokeswoman said: “A destruction order was issued by the court to the owner of the dog.

“On April 22, the dog owner’s appeal was dismissed and she was given a further 21 days to comply with the destruction order. Police were not part of this process.”

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 4, (1)(a) once a court makes an order to have a dog destroyed it may appoint a person to destroy the dog and require any person having custody of it to deliver it up for that purpose. It is understood police were not asked to enforce it.