The dog Sam has been in police custody since June 2023, while the case has been processed in the judicial system, writes Gudbrandsdølen Dagningen.
On Monday, the Oslo district court will deal with the newest chapter in the case. The organization Noah – for animal rights has taken over ownership of the dog, and is now suing the state with the intention of reversing the decision to kill it.
It was on 16 June 2023 that the dog probably attacked, bit and injured five sheep and two lambs at Mysusæter in Gudbrandsdalen. In the government attorney’s final submission, it appears that one of the lambs died as a result of the injuries, while the rest of the animals had to be euthanized.
The dog owner was acquitted
The farmer demanded compensation of NOK 71,229 from the owner, who was also fined. In Vestre Innlandet district court, the dog owner was acquitted, but at the same time sentenced to pay NOK 36,000 in compensation.
– They probably think that the dog is behind the injuries. The key is that they nevertheless believe the dog owner has not been negligent, said the dog owner’s defender Kjersti Brevik Møller at the time.
Following the attack, the dog was requested to be put down, a decision which was appealed. The owner was unsuccessful in his appeal. At some point, Noah took over the ownership of the dog, and thus the legal responsibility for the animal and the bills for the kennel it is kept at. They want to take the case further because of the changes in the Dogs Act that came into force half a year before the attack.
Mental examination not carried out
– The new Dog Act indicates that euthanasia must be the absolute last resort. In the preparatory work, sheep attacks are used as an example of cases where other measures should be used before killing, says manager Siri Martinsen in Noah.
Brevik Møller acts as Noah’s lawyer in the case. In addition to the principled side, she also emphasizes that the organization has requested a mental examination of the dog, to assess its aggression and the risk of repetition. This investigation has not been carried out, which Noah believes is a procedural error.
– The plaintiff believes that an overall assessment has not been made of what is necessary to avert future risk related to the dog Sam, writes Brevik Møller in Noah’s final post.
The dog or the human?
On the basis of these factors, Noah, the plaintiff, states that the police’s decision to euthanize is disproportionate and invalid. They believe the situation arose as a result of human error, not because there is anything wrong with the dog.
– The dog is described by the previous owner and by the kennel as very trainable and poses no danger with proper security. As a result, other measures, such as extended restraining orders, must be considered and possibly implemented, the final submission also states.
The government attorney, who represents the state, states that the decision is valid and based on correct application of the law. They believe that it is the dog’s conditions, not the dog’s keeping, that are the reason the dog poses a risk.
– It concerns a dog of the Cane corso breed, which is stated to weigh approx. 41 kg. The dog’s size, power and jaw pressure, in themselves, entail a large danger potential. The extent and type of damage caused in the case is significant, writes associate attorney Thorvald Kristensen Tysvær.
#Animal #protection #organization #sued #state #save #dog
2024-08-30 23:07:25
