Medical staff often have to choose between different treatment options, which can lead to...
In a case which put into stark relief the often criticised narrowness of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, a mother and her young daughter who were bitten and traumatised by their neighbour's dogs are facing a fresh struggle to prove that they were victims of a crime of violence.
The mother was taking her daughter to school when they were attacked by two large and powerful mastiffs which had escaped into a communal yard by breaking through their owner's rickety gate. Both mother and daughter were seriously bitten – the incident was described as 'extremely nasty and distressing' – and the dogs' owner later admitted an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
In spite of their injuries, the mother and her daughter were refused a penny in compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) on the basis that the attack did not amount to a crime of violence. The dogs were not known to be vicious and their owner had not deliberately set them upon their victims. That ruling, however, was subsequently overturned by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT), which found that the owner had been reckless in his care and control of the animals.
In allowing CICA's appeal, the Upper Tribunal noted that it was difficult to accept that negligently allowing a dog to escape, even a dog which was known to be aggressive, could amount to a crime of violence. The FTT had applied the wrong legal test and given inadequate reasons for its decision.
The mother and daughter's case was sent back to the FTT for a fresh hearing.
An attack by a dog can not only cause physical injury but also psychological harm, and claims seeking compensation for such injuries are the most common type of animal-related claim in the UK.