*iStock photo
*iStock photo

A Warwick man was today fined $7,000 after his unlicensed dog mauled his nephew.

And Senior Magistrate Archibald Warner ordered the dog be destroyed.

Reuben Waldron’s Rottweiler left the 13-year-old boy with severe gashes to his face, arm and stomach area. He required surgery as a result of the attack to repair numerous wounds.

Crown counsel Cindy Clarke told the court animal wardens were made aware of a dog attack that happened on July 30 at 8:45pm.

The wardens went to the King Edward VII Memorial Hospital where they spoke to the boy’s father who told them the boy had been with his uncle walking two dogs.

While they were walking the male Rottweiler attacked the boy.

At the time of the attack, the defendant had moved a short distance away from the area.

The boy was taken to the emergency room to treat his injuries and had surgery, including skin graphs.

Photos of the boy’s injuries were taken at the hospital.

The dog was seized the following day by animal wardens and during the investigation, the wardens discovered the dog was unlicensed.

During mitigation, the court heard the boy usually walks the dogs with his uncle, but he walks the smaller female Rotweiler. On the day of the attack, he was walking the larger male dog.

The boy’s father addressed the court and said they were aware of the danger surrounding Rotweiler’s but said Waldron allegedly keeps them “highly trained”.

“He’s supposed to stop the dog on command”, the boy’s father said.

The court also heard insurance covered the boy’s medical fees.

As far as the unlicensing of the dog, Waldron said the licensing had lapsed.

Sentencing the defendant, Mr Warner said: “In my view, I’ll say that this is a serious matter with serious injuries. The injuries speak for themselves.

“However, the circumstances of these injuries seem to be different to the extent that this isn’t a case where a dog was on a property and escaped and attacked someone, an innocent third party so to speak.”

Mr Warner continued: “With regard to count two, I don’t know if the dog were licensed if it would make any difference to its behaviour.

“I don’t think it would. The fact is that it should have been licensed.

“Obviously, there’s a need to regulate these dog licensing simply because of keeping track of them because of the dangers they can pose.”

Mr Warner fined Waldron $5,000 for the unlicensed dog and $2,000 for keeping a dog that caused injury to a boy.

He also ordered the dog be destroyed and that the defendant compensate the complainant for damage injury costs up to $10,000.

Waldron asked for time to pay the fine and also asked that the dog be placed with someone “better suited” rather than destroyed.

“I’m totally sorry for what has happened. My relationship with my nephew has been destroyed.

“I am a dog lover. I’ve had Rotweiler’s for 15 years.

“This is the first time this has ever happened.”

But Mr Warner said: ‘This young man could have died. These dogs are capable of killing people.

“You haven’t given me any reason for this vicious attack of this dog.

“He’s dangerous and the law says that if he’s dangerous he needs to be destroyed.”