By Latrishka Thomas
A couple whose dogs are said to have viciously attacked two passersby are facing criminal charges in the Magistrate’s Court.
Glen and Shermain Prosper are charged with causing their dogs to attack, failing to register their dogs, failing to microchip their dogs, causing the dogs to run at large and causing their dogs to worry two individuals.
The incident is said to have occurred on December 5 when the complainant and her six-year-old granddaughter were walking through Lightfoot.
They were reportedly attacked by three brown dogs at around 12.30pm that day.
The complainant is said to have held on to her granddaughter so tight that they ended up on the ground.
She reportedly cuddled the minor in an effort to protect her and allegedly received most of the bites.
It is said that the pair’s screams caused residents to rush to the scene and they managed to scare the dogs off.
But by that time the complainant had already received bites on her thigh, back and leg while her grand-daughter was also bitten on her thigh.
The woman reported the matter to the police after being treated at the hospital.
Upon investigating the matter, the police reportedly saw video footage of the female defendant leaving her property with the gate open an hour before the incident.
The Prospers were subsequently slapped with multiple charges and brought to the All Saints Magistrate’s Court yesterday where they were each granted bail in the sum of $5,000 with a $500 cash component.
The duo, who were represented by lawyer Sherfield Bowen, were also told to surrender their passports, present two sureties and report to their nearest police station three times a week.
They are set to return to court on March 28.
Meanwhile, their dogs are said to have been seized by the Dog Control Authority.
According to the Dogs Registration and Control Act 2006, the defendants could be fined up to $500 for each charge or be imprisoned for three months.
The magistrate may also “make an order … that the dog be kept under proper control by its owner, or, in the case of a second or any subsequent complaint in respect of the same dog, destroyed”.
