Hampstead Heath ‘dog attack’ probed

Paul Robinson's injuries

Man claims he was seriously injured as he tried to protect his pet

Published: 09 September, 2010
by CHARLOTTE CHAMBERS

A JOURNALIST had two muscles severed in his arm when he was attacked by a powerful French Mastiff on Hampstead Heath.

Paul Robinson, 54, claimed he was walking his six-year-old Beagle, Martin, by the mixed ponds in Parliament Hill on Thursday morning when the animal, also known as a Dogue de Bordeaux, which is bred for fighting and bear hunting, sank its teeth into his arm as he tried protect his dog by putting it on a lead.

Mr Robinson has been forced to take six weeks off work due to the injuries he sustained. 

Police were notified of the attack after lifeguards were alerted that a man had been bitten. Officers in turn called for an ambulance after realising the severity of his injuries.

Mr Robinson said the Mastiff first attacked Martin in April, in a fight he described as “like the Tasmanian Devil versus Snoopy,” which cost him £400 in vet fees.

“This dog has gone for my dog twice,” he said. “There needs to be some way of working out what triggers him off. Research shows my dog has five out of five for friendliness, this dog has one out of five for friendliness.”

Mr Robinson said he was alarmed that following the second attack the dog was still walking around the Heath without a muzzle or a lead days later and could have attacked again.

He believes police should have the power to take it away for observation and tests, to establish whether it is dangerous.

“When that dog bit me, it should have been taken away and observed, but instead it was just let go,” said Mr Robinson.

“I don’t think [the police] have got the powers to do anything without a court order. Everything is retrospective. Things really need speeding up. The system needs to improve to prevent it from happening again – to another dog or a child.”

A police spokeswoman said: “We are investigating the incident under the Dangerous Dogs Act and will speak to both dog owners.” Under the act, a judge can order the destruction of a dog if it is decided it cannot be retrained and poses a future risk to the public and other dogs.

While the breed has seen its popularity surge in recent decades, it is not considered a dangerous dog and is often used by police because of its size.

On Monday a judge at Highbury Magistrates Court will decide whether a dog that attacked a Border Collie and its owner on the Heath in August 2009, leaving both with injuries, is still a danger to the public.

The five-year-old Rottweiler-mix, called Lucio, could be destroyed if an assessment finds he cannot be trained. 

In July Lucio’s owner Valeria Fettuccia pleaded guilty to being in charge of a dog that was dangerously out of control in a public place. 

Comments

the dogs name is George and by no means a tasmanian devil

I have just come back from my holidays and was so shocked to see this story The journalist should of really got both sides of this story before printing this I look after George every now and then as my 8 year old son is in love with him he is one big softy and i would never have my child around a dog which I felt was unsafe at all

I know the dog in Question ,

I know the dog in Question , This dog is not at all aggressive he is lovely dog & has a very responsible owner I do not belive this dog would attack anyone .

It's the owner, not the breed!

Firstly, I feel for the man bitten and his dog - This must have been an awful thing to go through. However, this article really has an unsaid slant against Dogue de Boreaux's. Yes, they were bred for guarding and baiting BEFORE Roman times. However, they are not aggressive by nature, only by nurture. I have a lovely Dogue de Bordeaux who rolls on her back for chihuahuas and is the nicest dog you will ever meet. Please, look at bad and irresponsible ownership and don't tar and feather an entire breed of loyal, wonderful dogs!

Take if for what it's worth.

I read a lot of dog attacks and the comments are always the same. When it's a so-called, "Dangerous Breed" (i.e. Rotts, Pits, etc...) the comments are always, "this killer dog breed should be wiped out." OR "Why would anybody own such dangerous breed."

But whenever it's another breed. The comments change saying, "Its not the breed, its the owners," Or "it must've been a mix, purebred's don't attack." Or "my dog is so loving."

My favorites are Golden Retriever and Labrador owners. They are so sure that the article is lying about a GR or Lab attack or the media is picking on GR's, or it just HAD to be abused in some way. Yet they are so fast to pass judgement on a "dangerous breed" attack.
It's pretty arrogant of the commentor. That, or just plain hypocrisy.

Just like on my website that is against BSL.....I post dog attacks 'other' than "Dangerous Breed's" and I get hate comments suggesting I am singling out other breeds and not just the so-called "dangerous breeds"

I'm not suggesting all GR's or whatever YOUR breed is, is bad. I'm stating that all dogs, no matter what breed, can and will attack if the circumstances are right.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.