Sheriff orders dog destroyed after it attacks neighbour

Rottweiler had been made subject of a control order a year earlier

A sheriff has ordered the destruction of a rottweiler that attacked and bit the family’s next-door neighbour.

The man had gone to deliver a letter wrongly put through his door when he was bitten on the hand.

The dog had also previously been made subject of a control order after it attacked and injured a Jack Russell terrier.

Sarah Rollo, 40, of McClelland Crescent, Dunfermline, admitted that on March 26 at her home she was the owner of a rottweiler, which was out of control and bit Edward Butler on the body causing injury.

Depute fiscal Alisdair Shaw said: “The complainer, Mr Butler, is the next door neighbour of the accused, who has a male, black and tan rottweiler called Franco.

“At 1.30pm Mr Butler attended at the accused’s door to deliver a letter which had been put through his door by mistake.

“The door was answered by the accused’s son.”

As the neighbour stood at the front door and passed over the letter to the boy, the dog suddenly appeared and bit him on the right hand.

Mr Butler went home and reported the incident to the police, at which point Rollo came to ask about his injuries.

The injured man then went to Queen Margaret Hospital where his wounds were cleaned, bandaged and he was given antibiotics.

“When police spoke to the accused she was extremely apologetic and said she would be making inquiries about having the dog destroyed,” added the depute.

“It later transpired that a Control of Dog Order had been imposed on the dog 12 months previously after it attacked and injured a Jack Russell terrier.”

The depute submitted a motion for destruction.

Sheriff Charles MacNair said: “It’s always sad and distressing for the court to order the destruction of a dog, but I do have to have regard to the protection of the public.

“The protection of the public and of human beings is of higher importance and, of course rottweilers are known to be substantial and powerful dogs.”

The sheriff said it would be less expensive for the accused if she went ahead and had the dog destroyed rather than the court intervening at this stage.

Sentence was deferred until May 2 for the dog to be put down and a letter produced in court from a vet to confirm this.

It’s always sad and distressing for the court to order the destruction of a dog, but I do have to have regard to the protection of the public. SHERIFF CHARLES MACNAIR