Wick sheriff speaks out over unacceptable posts on Facebook
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
A SHERIFF has expressed concern about unacceptable posts on Facebook cropping up in "all manner of criminal cases" coming before him.
Sheriff Andrew Berry highlighted one message commenting on a dog-biting incident and said it could have had "a very serious effect" on proceedings had the case been heard before a jury.
He told Wick Sheriff Court, hearing the concluding part of the case on Monday: "Why people take the opportunity to send entirely inappropriate views capable of being seen by others, I don't know."
The sheriff also took exception to the fact that people had posted comments and a cutting of a press report during an ongoing trial and added that "it beggars belief".
The dog owner visited a relative accompanied by his cocker spaniel on August 5 last year. The court heard previously that an 11-year-old schoolboy was crouched down in the living room petting the dog which leapt up, putting its front paws on the boy's chest.
The lad pushed the paws away and turned to go to a table in the living room. At that point, the dog bit him on the left hand and he had to punch the animal on the head to make it let go.
Why people take the opportunity to send entirely inappropriate views capable of being seen by others, I don't know.
Despite pleading not guilty to a charge of having failed to keep his dog under control, the accused conceded in his evidence that the incident had taken place but said that he immediately leapt up from the sofa and took the dog into the porch. The youngster was treated in hospital and was said to have been traumatised by the incident.
Finding the charge not proven, Sheriff Berry said there had been a claim that the dog had bitten its owner the previous day but that had been denied. He went on: "I don't know the truth of that, so I can't be certain one way or the other."
The sheriff said that it could not have been anticipated that the dog might attack. There was no evidence he could rely on to indicate that the dog might do so and that anyone had been warned that this was a possibility.
Sheriff Berry told the accused: "The dog was welcome at the house and the boy was playing with the dog. I am unable to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty of this offence."
The sheriff referred to "friction in the family" which the case had generated and continued: "If it is allowed to fester, in my experience, that is not helpful. It makes no difference what was said or not said or done by one side or the other but, if there could be a reconciliation, that might be beneficial. That is merely an observation."
The accused cannot be named as it would lead to the identification of the schoolboy who is under the age of 18.
