Princess Anne fined £500
21 November 2002, 03:30 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLOUGH, England -- The only daughter of Britain's Queen Elizabeth, Princess Anne, has been fined £500 ($780) after she pleaded guilty to a charge that her dog bit two children in a public park.
The 52-year-old princess -- who royal experts said is the first senior royal to be convicted of a criminal charge for more than 350 years -- admitted the offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act just minutes after arriving in court to face the allegation.
The Princess Royal, flanked by her husband, Commodore Tim Laurence, walked into East Berkshire Magistrates Court in Slough in front of dozens of news photographers.
It was alleged that that the couple were in charge of a dog that was dangerously out of control and injured the children, who were aged seven and 12. The case against Laurence was dropped when the princess admitted the offence, the Press Association reported.
The incident happened as they walked their English bull terrier in Windsor Great Park, near the main residence of the Princess Royal's mother, on April 1 two days after the death of the Queen Mother.
In an ironic twist, Reuters reported the case at the East Berkshire Magistrates court in Slough, west of London, was listed as Regina vs. Anne Elizabeth Alice Laurence -- a legal battle symbolically pitting mother against daughter.
Constitutional experts could recall no case of such a senior royal being convicted of a crime since her uncle 10 generations removed Charles I was beheaded for treason on the eve of civil war in 1649.
Anne's punishment was less severe although in theory she could have been jailed for six months. As well as the £500 fine, she was ordered to pay £250 compensation and £148 court costs.
PA reported that district Judge Penelope Hewitt ordered that the princess's dog Dotty should be kept on a lead in public places and should undergo training. She warned that under the Dangerous Dogs Act Dotty would be destroyed if there were any further incidents.
Passing sentence, after asking if the princess "would be so kind as to stand up", the district judge said: "I consider that the owners are extremely responsible and if an order is made I have no doubt they will adhere to it."
She continued: "I have to add that these children did suffer considerably from this experience.
"I think the children simply didn't know what to do. It was a very, very unfortunate episode and I can only hope that the children, as time goes by, will become more amenable to dogs."
She said the children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been put off dogs by the incident, "which is a shame because dogs enhance family life considerably."
The 52-year-old princess -- who royal experts said is the first senior royal to be convicted of a criminal charge for more than 350 years -- admitted the offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act just minutes after arriving in court to face the allegation.
The Princess Royal, flanked by her husband, Commodore Tim Laurence, walked into East Berkshire Magistrates Court in Slough in front of dozens of news photographers.
It was alleged that that the couple were in charge of a dog that was dangerously out of control and injured the children, who were aged seven and 12. The case against Laurence was dropped when the princess admitted the offence, the Press Association reported.
The incident happened as they walked their English bull terrier in Windsor Great Park, near the main residence of the Princess Royal's mother, on April 1 two days after the death of the Queen Mother.
In an ironic twist, Reuters reported the case at the East Berkshire Magistrates court in Slough, west of London, was listed as Regina vs. Anne Elizabeth Alice Laurence -- a legal battle symbolically pitting mother against daughter.
Constitutional experts could recall no case of such a senior royal being convicted of a crime since her uncle 10 generations removed Charles I was beheaded for treason on the eve of civil war in 1649.
Anne's punishment was less severe although in theory she could have been jailed for six months. As well as the £500 fine, she was ordered to pay £250 compensation and £148 court costs.
PA reported that district Judge Penelope Hewitt ordered that the princess's dog Dotty should be kept on a lead in public places and should undergo training. She warned that under the Dangerous Dogs Act Dotty would be destroyed if there were any further incidents.
Passing sentence, after asking if the princess "would be so kind as to stand up", the district judge said: "I consider that the owners are extremely responsible and if an order is made I have no doubt they will adhere to it."
She continued: "I have to add that these children did suffer considerably from this experience.
"I think the children simply didn't know what to do. It was a very, very unfortunate episode and I can only hope that the children, as time goes by, will become more amenable to dogs."
She said the children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had been put off dogs by the incident, "which is a shame because dogs enhance family life considerably."
22 November 2002, 02:47 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Jaguar 3.0 sport now bought, Am loving it!!!!!
Posts: 7,653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dog should have been put down, anybody else's dog would have been , so why should she be any different, makes me bloody angry, what about the poor children the mutt bit, they may be scared for a long time.
Cheers
Colin
Cheers
Colin
Trending Topics
22 November 2002, 03:27 PM
#9
Scooby Senior
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wildberg, Germany/Reading, UK
Posts: 9,706
Likes: 0
Received 73 Likes
on
54 Posts
Ahhhhh isn't it terrible! the scoobynet execution squad spring into action again to condem the dog owner, what the f**k where the precious little innocent darling children doing in order to provoke the dog to bite BOTH of them in the first place.
22 November 2002, 03:33 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Essexville
Posts: 4,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wurzel,
this was a Bull terrier we're talking about, not a fooking poodle.
these dogs are unstable and should all be put down, along with their owners!!!
smelly, ugly, slobs.
BB
this was a Bull terrier we're talking about, not a fooking poodle.
these dogs are unstable and should all be put down, along with their owners!!!
smelly, ugly, slobs.
BB
22 November 2002, 03:36 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: London
Posts: 4,891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was Anne's fault the dog was out of control, not the dog's fault. Hence the £500 fine.
As usual, the problem here is the owner, yet the dogs get the blame.
As usual, the problem here is the owner, yet the dogs get the blame.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post