The Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court acquitted a dog owner of charges of releasing a dog without a barrier and amputating the finger of another dog owner, after she refused to admit the details of the indictment. On the other hand, her roommate, the dog's co-owner, admitted and signed a conditional settlement.
According to the indictment, the defendant and her partner owned a pit bull dog, and the complainant owns another dog. Together with the complainant's sister-in-law, who has two other dogs, the four went to a school near where they live and released the dogs from their leashes in a fenced area.
The defendants were legally obligated to block the dog's mouth. Also, since this is not formally a dog garden, the release from the leashes is against the law.
At some point, the pit bull and the complainant's dog began to fight, and those present tried to separate them. Suddenly, the complainant was bitten and his thumb was amputated. According to the complainant and his sister-in-law, the pit bull, who had no barrier on his mouth, bit him and amputated his finger. The defendants claim that the dog did have a barrier, which is why the complainant was most likely bitten by his own dog "in the storm of battle."
About a week after the incident, the defendant said in her police interrogation that the school where the incident occurred had security cameras, but the police did not seize any security videos. As noted, the case against the partner was closed with a conditional settlement after she admitted to committing the offense – failing to take precautions against the animal – because her dog was without a leash as required by law.
Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court (Archive), photo: Gideon Markowitz
Judge Itai Harmelin asked the prosecution to consider offering the defendant an identical arrangement for reasons of equality, but the prosecution refused and announced that it could not be signed to a conditional settlement relating to an indictment that did not state facts. In any case, the defendant, who feared that the complainant would file a civil suit against her, refused to sign such an agreement and the trial was conducted.
In the end, as mentioned, Judge Hermelin acquitted her. According to him, it is impossible to determine which of the dogs bit the complainant, and the defendant's conviction in a criminal proceeding for the fact that the dog was without a leash would constitute discriminatory enforcement, which fundamentally contradicts justice and fairness.
He said that since it was not properly proven that it was a dog that amputated the complainant's finger, and there is a reasonable doubt that the complainant was bitten by his own dog, "there is no reason to impose criminal liability on the defendant, whether he was a dog with a muzzle or not." He added: "There is certainly no reason to convict the defendant that the dog was on a leash, when everyone present released their dogs, thus violating the law just like her."
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us