Dangerous dogs spared as court condemns owner

The owner of several dangerous dogs, who was handed a suspended sentence and banned from keeping dogs in March after one of his pets mauled a woman near Manoel Island, has been handed another suspended sentence on account of a previous attack by one of his dogs.

Gzira resident David Farrugia was charged with offences relating to his failure to control his dangerous mastiffs after they attacked a pedestrian in Gzira in July 2016.

The victim suffered bites to his hands and legs and spent five days in hospital as a result. The victim had told the court that the animal that attacked him first was a white Argentinian Mastiff, which was followed shortly afterwards by two other dogs.

Magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo noted that the accused had not contradicted the victim's version of events, which led the court to be morally certain that it had been the accused's untethered dogs that attacked the man. This was not the first time the accused had been arraigned on similar charges and it was time for him to bear the responsibility for the injuries his dogs had inflicted, the court said.

In view of the fact that the victim's injuries were adjudged as being slight in nature, he was handed a six-month sentence, suspended for four years.

But the court spared the man's three dogs from being put down, saying that the law was “too draconian in this regard.”


“Dogs love and obey their owners and behave according to the manner in which they were brought up and taught, therefore animals should not be punished for the mistakes of human owners.”

Magistrate Caroline Farrugia Frendo said that in the circumstances she did not feel that she should condemn the accused's dogs because “the animals are innocent. After all, it is the accused who is charged before the court and not his dogs.”

The court said it would do as the Court of Appeal had done in previous, similar, cases and order that the dogs be removed from the accused's possession and be handed to the Animal Welfare Department, which would then decide where to keep the dogs.

“Under no circumstances are the dogs to be returned, delivered or released to the accused or other members of his family,” the court ordered.