Rottweiler owner found not guilty after woman was attacked and bitten by a dog

THE owner of a Rottweiler was last week found not guilty in Carlow District Court of offences under the Control Of Dogs Act after a woman was attacked and bitten while out walking her own dog.

Andrew Cullen (43) Mount View, Parkmore, Baltinglass was found not guilty of having an uncontrolled dog, of having a dog unmuzzled and of having a dog without a leash after a woman and her own dog were attacked in Parkmore, Baltinglass on 30 March 2024. Mr Cullen was also summoned with not having licences for his two Rottweillers at the time.

Investigating garda John Paul Kennedy said he got a call to say that a woman and her dog had been attacked that evening while they were out walking in Parkmore and that when he called to her house, she brought him to the location where she was attacked and said that the dog had come from Mr Cullen’s house. The woman had been bitten on the leg, the court heard, and was brought to hospital by ambulance for treatment.

Garda Kennedy said that he called to Mr Cullen’s house that evening but there was no response so called back a few days later and took a caution statement from him. He said that Mr Cullen told him that he knew one of the two Rottweilers had “got out” but he didn’t know that a woman and her dog had been attacked. Garda Kennedy stated that Mr Cullen said he had a male and a female dog, that the male dog was too big and heavy to escape from their enclosure and that if the female dog escaped, she usually only “sniffs around” and that this (attack) was new behaviour for her.

Solicitor Joe Farrell put it to the garda that Mr Cullen meant that the dog got out of her pen, not that she escaped and went out onto the street and that Mr Cullen had CCTV footage of the grounds where the dogs were kept and the garage where the female sometimes was kept.

The injured party gave evidence through an interpreter, stating that it was about 8pm when she and her dog were attacked by a Rottweiler and that even though it was dark at the time, she recognised the dog as one living in the locality. She said that the dog came up to her from behind but that she saw the dog returning to its house after the attack.

When it was put to her by Mr Farrell as to why she hadn’t taken any footage of the attack, or of where the dog went, she said that she was “afraid for her life” and wanted to get away from there as quickly as she could. She also said that she used to walk in that area of Baltinglass every day for years and that she was familiar with where the dog lived.

Mr Farrell put it to her that she told the gardaí in her original statement that the dog was black but that in court she described the dog as black and brown. She replied that she remembered what the dog looked like, but that she was “very shocked” when the statement was taken.

When asked by Mr Farrell how she knew what direction that dog came from if he came up to her from behind, she replied that she heard him growling behind her just before he attacked so she had quickly turned and saw the direction he was coming from, while she also saw it returning in the same direction.

CCTV footage of Mr Cullen’s garden was shown in court to illustrate the area where the dogs were kept, showing a male dog outside and a smaller female dog in a garage. Mr Cullen gave direct evidence that the CCTV footage was taken at the time of when the woman and was attacked. Mr Cullen said he “completely disputed” it was his dog that attacked the woman, asserting that the injured party could not have recognised his dog from before as it was not visible from the road. He said it was “completely incorrect” to say that there were no other Rottweilers living in the town and that he knew of eight to ten such dogs in the area, adding that one of his neighbours also kept that breed of dog. He also said that on the evening of the attack when the garda called to his house, he didn’t hear that bell ringing because he was watching television and that when Garda Kennedy phoned him, he texted him back to see who it was. When it was put to him by Inspector Conor Nolan that it was bright when the CCTV footage was taken and that the attack happened when it was dark, Mr Cullen replied that it was the way the cameras were pointed that made it look bright.

The court heard that Mr Cullen had since made improvements on security around the dogs and that he has bought licences for them.

Mr Farrell submitted to Judge Peter White that there were elements of doubt in the case, given that there was no CCTV evidence of where the dog had come from and that there were other Rottweilers with similar colouring living in the area.

Judge White agreed that there were doubts in the case and dismissed the charges, including the two summons for Mr Cullen not having dog licences, as he has since brought one for each dog.