A woman has raised £1,600 to fund a private prosecution against the former neighbour who killed her pet dog.

Woman Sues After Man Kills Her Dog With A Hoe Mother-of-three Tricia Wales claims Neville Hill killed five-year-old border terrier Wurzel with a garden hoe following a long-running dispute.

Mr Hill admitted hitting Wurzel with the hoe after it trespassed onto his property but the RSPCA decided not to prosecute him.

Mrs Wales, 60, of Yapton, near Arundel, Sussex, has launched a private prosecution against Mr Hill, alleging criminal damage.

She said: "I have had cheques from people I haven't even come across. People have been supportive of me as they are appalled at what has happened to Wurzel.

"Even if I hadn't raised the money, I would have remortgaged the house or done something to get enough money together to bring the prosecution."

The incident happened in September last year after Mrs Wales visited the shops and left Wurzel and her other two dogs in the house.

A post-mortem examination found the dog had sustained a skull fracture as a result of being struck by a blunt object, Mrs Wales said.

Mr Hill said he had not meant to kill Wurzel but he said Mrs Wales' dogs trespassed on to his land, aggravating and attacking his elderly dog.

He said: "The dog wasn't dead when I put her on the doorstep. It was still breathing and I simply thought she was concussed. If I had thought she was seriously injured then I would have called a vet.

"I did strike the fatal blow but (Mrs Wales) doesn't take responsibility for her dogs, it's as simple as that. It happened as a result of her dogs attacking my dog."

Mr Hill said he intended pleading not guilty and added that since the incident he has moved from the property, selling it around £100,000 below its market value.

RSPCA inspector Becky Carter said: "The Animal Welfare Act 2006 says an animal has to suffer for us to prosecute.

"Because the forensic pathologist said Wurzel was hit over the head and rendered unconscious immediately, the dog didn't undergo any suffering.

Taken from Yahoo news site

Poor little mite, how can anyone be so crule :confused:

erm, how many people on here have already stated they'd do anything necessary to defend their own dogs against attack?

this article has been written from a completely biased perspective. Just read it again from the point of view of a gentleman with an old dog which is continually attacked by the terriers from next door. Border terriers are killers, efficient ones at that.

If it came to it, I would use force if I had to.

I have to add though that even if I felt it necessary to strike a blow (I have had to remove a border terrier from my own dog before and although not easy, it is possible), I couldn't live with myself just leaving it lying on the owner's doorstep and from her point of view it would look very malicious if you were to come home and find a dead dog laid across your doorstep.

I would at least try to get in touch with the owner and take the dog to the local vet hoping she had an account with them.

However - the whole thing should never have happened because her dogs should not have been out (as they had been on repeated occassions) attacking his dog. She should've taken more responsibility for them.

I have to say though - I don't think either side were blameless. You have to remember that there was an ongoing fued as well, if that had not been going on, perhaps he wouldn't have been so quick to use force and may have seen another way of removing the dog... who knows.
He needn't have just left the dog even if he did think it was concussed - you'd never leave a concussed human alone, why a dog?

erm, how many people on here have already stated they'd do anything necessary to defend their own dogs against attack?

this article has been written from a completely biased perspective. Just read it again from the point of view of a gentleman with an old dog which is continually attacked by the terriers from next door. Border terriers are killers, efficient ones at that.

Looking at it from that perspective, yes you would do anything to protect your own pet, It just seems so sad that the little mite died, but had it been my elderly dog that was being attacked I would only be thinking about the safty of my own dog!
The lady in question certainly is not blameless in the matter.

im sorry but i would have dopne same if it was attaking my dogs, probably not as hard and harsh but you need to protect urpets

RSPCA inspector Becky Carter said: "The Animal Welfare Act 2006 says an animal has to suffer for us to prosecute.

"Because the forensic pathologist said Wurzel was hit over the head and rendered unconscious immediately, the dog didn't undergo any suffering.



Regardless of the minutiae of this particular case, being hit over the head with a hoe, rendered unconscious and subsequently dying isn't classed as suffering?

Bizarre.

well the RSPCA do have a completely different perspective... though would it have been fair to prosecute this bloke for looking after his own dog? How about the owner of the border terrier being prosecuted for her dogs being 'dangerously out of control' (though I suspect that would have to be 'in a public place' rather than in a neighbour's garden :roll: )

Have to agree with strix. If i looked out my window and saw a dog in my garden attacking my dog or cats, i wouldnt hesitate to use any means necessary to protect them. This dog should never have been in his garden.
As for the suffering comment, if we were hit on the head and knocked immediately unconscious, we wouldnt feel any pain. Thats prob what rspca meant.

Reading this over I actually feel sorry for Mr hill and the dog that died, The dog was faild by its owner and the man has now left his home, such a bad situation.

This is a tragic story and faults can be found on both sides IMO

There are things that can be done other than whacking things on the head with garden implements but that's with either the benefit of experience seperating animals or the luxury of time to think about it.

Perhaps a suitable end would be for both parties to be reprimanded as thay have in each of their ways, failed in their duty as neigbours and as carers of their animals...

I read this story some time ago in a dog magazine and the story never mentioned any dog attack.:confused: The story told, that Mr Hill hated the ladys dogs as they were terriers and in his words "not a proper dog" and he attacked them as they had wandered onto his garden the article stated that he was not ashamed of his actions and they were unjustified.

Thats the press for you.

Perhaps a suitable end would be for both parties to be reprimanded as thay have in each of their ways, failed in their duty as neigbours and as carers of their animals...

If the case is reportedly accurately and there have been failures on the owner's part, then she is partly responsible too. If I'd ignored warnings that left my pets vulnerable, I would be mortified if they were killed as a result of my inaction to take measures to keep them from harm.

So, I'm still wondering about the truth here. The owner obviously feels she has a strong case to pursue her neighbour through private prosecution. Unless she doesn't have her full faculties, she must have strong evidence to carry on.

If the case is reportedly accurately and there have been failures on the owner's part, then she is partly responsible too. If I'd ignored warnings that left my pets vulnerable, I would be mortified if they were killed as a result of my inaction to take measures to keep them from harm.

So, I'm still wondering about the truth here. The owner obviously feels she has a strong case to pursue her neighbour through private prosecution. Unless she doesn't have her full faculties, she must have strong evidence to carry on.

Part of the problem here is the 'I'm right' mentality though, isn't it? If both parties believe themselves to be totally in the right then someone has to adjudge between them.

If both parties were to admit to the failings (she that she allowed her dog to run about unchecked and into her neighbour's garden and he that he hit the dog too hard and should have taken it to a vet) then they wouldn't have got as far as using the press, let alone the court process, against each other.

well the RSPCA do have a completely different perspective... though would it have been fair to prosecute this bloke for looking after his own dog? How about the owner of the border terrier being prosecuted for her dogs being 'dangerously out of control' (though I suspect that would have to be 'in a public place' rather than in a neighbour's garden :roll: )

public or private space to which they have no right to access.

Yep Medusa, I agree with you about the "I'm right" mentality but there was just this bit of the news article that made me sit up.

The incident happened in September last year after Mrs Wales visited the shops and left Wurzel and her other two dogs in the house.

Were the dogs in the house? It's either distorted reporting or there is more to it.