Law review

A High Court judge believes it is time for “reconsideration of the law” related to dogs in Barbados, as he imposed a suspended sentence on a man whose pit bulls mauled to death an elderly woman five and a half years ago.

Justice Christopher Birch said on Friday that while it is not for the court to rule on the inherent or potential dangers of any specific breed of dog, Peter Christopher Rock’s case “has shown that there exists a need to clarify the law relating to the treatment, care, and restrictions to be imposed upon dogs, and liability arising therefrom”.

Rock, of Monroe Rad, Haggatt Hall, St Michael, had pleaded guilty to the unlawful killing of 74-year-old Verona Gibson, taking responsibility for his dogs escaping and attacking the senior citizen around 5:20 a.m. on January 28, 2017.

The retired nurse had been on her way to clean the St Barnabas Anglican Church when she met her death.

Justice Birch noted that several other jurisdictions had revisited laws relating to the criminal and civil culpability of dog owners for the actions of their canines, including the United Kingdom in 2006, and Jamaica in 2020.

“Parliament may wish to consider such clarifications in the very near future to inform owners of the obligations and risks that arise in situations where dogs are not suitably controlled and, as a result, may cause injury, damage or death,” the judge said as he handed down his decision in Supreme Court No. 5 A.

He said Rock’s case fell into the category of involuntary manslaughter where the death arose from a breach of the statutory duty of care as set out in Section 12(1) of the Dogs (Licensing and Control) Act Cap 177.

He said it was accepted by prosecutor Senior State Counsel Oliver Thomas and defence attorney Lesley Cargill-Straker that the escape of the dogs from Rock’s premises directly led to the attack that cost Gibson her life.

“The death of Ms Gibson was not one planned nor foreseen by Mr Rock. No weapons were involved . . . . Indeed, had Mr Rock fulfilled his statutory duty as contemplated by the aforementioned Dogs (License and Control) Act, there is every likelihood that this situation would not have arisen at all,” Justice Birch said.

“However, the simple fact is that his dogs did escape and that the fencing and gate proved insufficient to keep the dogs within the bounds of his house. It should have been reasonable for him to conclude that these animals would cause mischief and damage having escaped the premises,” he added.

In deciding on sentencing, the judge said the proposed starting point for the imposition of a custodial sentence in such matters is one year, taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

He said the aggravating circumstances of the case justified increasing the starting sentence to 18 months, but then credited Rock a one-third discount for his guilty plea and other factors.

“His cooperation with the police, palpable remorse, and the mitigating circumstances of the case and his own situation shall also make him eligible for further consideration and is assessed at six months discount, resulting in a sentence of 12 months imprisonment,” Justice Birch said.

“In accordance with the Penal System Reform Act, this sentence is suspended for a period of 18 months, to come into effect should he commit an offence and be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period exceeding six months. Should this occur, the current sentence will run concurrently with any sentence imposed. In the event that the period of suspension expires without any further offences being committed, this sentence will be expunged from his record automatically,” the judge ruled.