Dog handler acquitted of using dog as a weapon
The alleged offending took 24 seconds, the ensuing prosecution nearly two years, and a jury today took just 40 minutes to acquit a police dog handler accused of using his dog as a weapon.
Two YEARS !! why should it take so long to bring to trial?! I read the court sections and this isn't the first one that takes so long. It is criminal for a trial to drag so long...
(read my comments and the actual article in the post below)
He pointed to inconsistencies in the accused's statement of fact, incident reports, and evidence given in court
Defence counsel Mike Antunovic said the accused had seen the multi-tool in Mr Wilby's hand and had released the dog in defence of Mr Spence.
The arrest was the first time Mr Spence had been involved in a police pursuit, or seen dog handlers in action.
In contrast, the accused was an experienced dog handler accustomed to dealing with police pursuits.
The time from the accused releasing his dog, to taking it back to his van and calling police communications to say an arrest was made took 24 seconds.
Mr Antunovic said there was no way he could have planted the multi tool within that time frame without being seen.
Through a spokesman, the dog handler said he was pleased that the matter had finally come to an end.
He did not wish to comment further, but thanked everyone who had supported him and his family.
He told the jury earlier this week he was "disgusted" with his police bosses for prosecuting him over the incident. They should prosecute when they think there is just caused, otherwise the police will have a law on their own.
He had never had another complaint made about him, and the prosecution had taken its toll on him and his family. I feel for the family, but it doesn't mean there shouldn't have been a trial.
Mr Wilby appeared as witness this week after spending the night in custody, charged with car conversion. Mr Antunovic said he was a hardened career criminal, and his testimony, which the prosecution relied upon, was not credible. Interesting that in the previous article which I dissected, this was never mentionned. I didn't know that the guy was a mob guy.
The trial, before Judge Susan Thomas, was the second the accused had been through, with the jury at the first trial, in June, unable to reach a verdict.
Two YEARS !! why should it take so long to bring to trial?! I read the court sections and this isn't the first one that takes so long. It is criminal for a trial to drag so long...
(read my comments and the actual article in the post below)
He pointed to inconsistencies in the accused's statement of fact, incident reports, and evidence given in court
Defence counsel Mike Antunovic said the accused had seen the multi-tool in Mr Wilby's hand and had released the dog in defence of Mr Spence.
The arrest was the first time Mr Spence had been involved in a police pursuit, or seen dog handlers in action.
In contrast, the accused was an experienced dog handler accustomed to dealing with police pursuits.
The time from the accused releasing his dog, to taking it back to his van and calling police communications to say an arrest was made took 24 seconds.
Mr Antunovic said there was no way he could have planted the multi tool within that time frame without being seen.
Through a spokesman, the dog handler said he was pleased that the matter had finally come to an end.
He did not wish to comment further, but thanked everyone who had supported him and his family.
He told the jury earlier this week he was "disgusted" with his police bosses for prosecuting him over the incident. They should prosecute when they think there is just caused, otherwise the police will have a law on their own.
He had never had another complaint made about him, and the prosecution had taken its toll on him and his family. I feel for the family, but it doesn't mean there shouldn't have been a trial.
Mr Wilby appeared as witness this week after spending the night in custody, charged with car conversion. Mr Antunovic said he was a hardened career criminal, and his testimony, which the prosecution relied upon, was not credible. Interesting that in the previous article which I dissected, this was never mentionned. I didn't know that the guy was a mob guy.
The trial, before Judge Susan Thomas, was the second the accused had been through, with the jury at the first trial, in June, unable to reach a verdict.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home