Future of dog offence judge in doubt after court outburst

THE Lord Chief Justice is to review the position of a judge who swore and stormed out of court when she was convicted of failing to control her dog.

Judge Beatrice Bolton, of Rothbury, Northumberland, is to appeal her conviction at Carlisle Magistrates Court yesterday of allowing her pet German Shepherd to bite 20-year-old Frederick Becker, her neighbour.

The 57-year-old, who was heard yelling: "I'll never set foot in a court again," from outside the courtroom, was fined 2,500 and ordered to pay 275 compensation to the victim, plus 930 court costs and a 15 surcharge.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

District Judge Gerald Chalk also asked her to apologise for her outburst to the court.

The court heard Bolton was labelled "the neighbour from Hell" by Mr Becker's parents David and Anne Malia whose relationship with her had soured over the rights to their shared back gardens and the behaviour of Bolton's dog.

Their son, Frederick "Fritz" Becker was lying on the lawn at his parents' home when the then seven-month-old bitch Georgina went for him on May 31.

CCTV cameras trained on the Malias' property showed it dash towards Mr Becker, of Fawdon, Newcastle, then bite or claw at him.

Bolton apologised to him immediately after the attack.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Mr Becker's wound was checked at Rothbury Community Hospital but did not require treatment.

Bolton's counsel, Ben Nolan QC, said she had attempted "a rapprochement" by offering to introduce the pet to the Malias, or to build a boundary fence between the two properties, but the couple had refused.

Mr Nolan said Georgina, who is registered with the Kennel Club as Bunderbury Francer, had since received specialist obedience training and had been judged by a police dog handler not to be a dangerous dog.

Also, Bolton had paid around 5,000 to erect a fence between the two properties.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Bolton was found guilty of being the owner of a dog, allowing it to enter a place which was not a public place where the dog was not permitted to be and while the dog was there, there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure a person.

The judge had denied the single charge contrary to section 3 and

4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Speaking afterwards, she said she had been pushed to the limit by the strain of the case and would be considering her future.

"I have to tell you I'm absolutely devastated by this conviction.

"I have always sought to do what was right in relation to my neighbours and was very conscious of my public position and tried very hard for it not to be said that I was abusing such a position."

Related topics: