Three girls, 4, 8 & 11, mauled by ‘monster' 7st XL Bully in horror attack at home – as mum, 42, is spared jail
A "MONSTER" seven-and-a-half stone XL Bully mauled three young girls, dragging one across the floor.
Mum Victoria Hewitt was at home with her two children, aged eight and four, as well as an 11-year-old friend of the kids when family pet Karma suddenly flipped.
A knock at the door resulted in the dog acting in a "very aggressive and violent way" and "went" for the eight-year-old, a court heard.
During the incident in Costessey, Norfolk, Hewitt, 42, tried to distract the animal with some ham but it didn't work, prosecutor Chris Youell said.
Instead, Karma began attacking the child as the other two screamed, before it targeted them too.
The girls ran for the door and were all bitten before Hewitt managed to wrestle the dog away.
The eight-year-old managed to flee upstairs with her toddler brother, aged two, who was in his cot during the attack on March 7 last year.
A neighbour helped Hewitt restrain Karma and held her on the floor, telling everyone to get out.
When cops arrived on the scene, the mum screamed at them to "shoot the dog".
Mr Youell described how Karma was sedated by officers before being destroyed.
The three girls suffered bite and puncture wounds which needed medical treatment.
The eight-year-old had "significant" injuries, including a deep wound down to the bone on her arm, the court heard.
The dog had previously belonged to an ex partner of Hewitt's who had left it with her.
The court was told the mum had taken precautions, including installing a pen and stairgates.
Hewitt appeared in court yesterday having admitted a charge of being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control causing injury.
Rob Pollington, defending, said his client was "extremely remorseful for what has occurred".
Judge Anthony Bate said the precautions taken were "well intended" but ultimately "inadequate".
He sentenced Hewitt to an eight month prison sentence suspended for 18 months.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
27 minutes ago
- The Sun
Brazen owner of Bully which mauled boy, 5, blames child and insists ‘he's harmless…I still let him play with my toddler'
A DAD whose dog 'savaged' a five-year-old boy says it was a "genuine mistake" and claims the child was actually in the wrong - sparking a furious response from his mum. Aaron Eccles' Pocket Bully attacked Antonio Quinn - four at the time - after he unexpectedly came into the house and startled the pet, resulting in injuries to his face and legs. 11 11 The little boy subsequently needed a three-hour operation to stitch his wounds - while police seized the Bully, as well as a Staffordshire Bull Terrier, owned by Aaron's partner, at the scene. Aaron told The Sun: 'It's a genuine mistake and the parents aren't accepting the fact that their child's in the wrong for coming into the house." And says he'd still be happy for the dog to play with his own six-month-old baby son. However, Antonio's flabbergasted mum Amanda Holmes has hit back at the owner's claims, saying her son is "very lucky to be alive" and was certainly not to blame. She said "trying to justify" the dog's behaviour is "sickening". Aaron, who described arriving home on May 26 to see '20 armed officers' outside, believes the incident does not necessarily make his pet Harry - initially reported to be an XL Bully - 'dangerous'. Antonio had followed Aaron's six-year-old stepson into the house in Oswaldtwistle, Lancashire, after they'd been playing outside - with only his older sister, age 12, upstairs. Staffy Bella, who was in season, was in a cage to keep her separate from Harry. Aaron, 34, told The Sun: 'I came back and there's 20 armed police terrorising my dogs, pepper spraying them and winding them up. 'They told me my dog's savaged somebody, a four year old boy.' Mum screamed 'my baby's dead' as girl, 10, killed by XL Bully weeks after excitedly telling friends about her 'new pet' He added: 'He got reported as an XL Bully but it wasn't. He's a Pocket Bully.' Pocket Bully dogs are not part of the XL Bully ban. It's a criminal offence to own or possess an XL Bully dog in England and Wales unless you have a valid Certificate of Exemption. Pocket Bullies are a much smaller, though similar breed. Aaron does not believe there would have been the same police response if they'd known initially Harry was a much smaller dog. And argues, due to most dogs' sense of territory and reaction to an 'intruder', any breed could have reacted in a similar manner. 'The dog's never met the little boy before so he's thought he's an intruder and he's nipped him to warn him to get out,' he said. 'He's not ragged him or savaged him or anything. He has bitten him but it's a warning bite. 'He hasn't grabbed hold of him and shook him about - nothing like how it's been portrayed.' 11 11 Describing Antonio's injuries, Aaron said: 'The marks on his legs are from his (the dog's) paws when he jumped up at him and also where he's caught his neck.' The dad explained that his partner Nikki Morris, 35, had told her son not to go into the house while she went to collect Aaron from the gym, but in the space of 10 minutes from her leaving the incident happened. He said: 'It's a genuine mistake and the parents aren't accepting the fact that their child's in the wrong for coming into the house. 'The worst has happened and now it's my family and dogs that are suffering.' Aaron previously spent time homeless, with two-year-old Harry as his only companion, and said he's extremely loyal to him, but 'like a teddy bear' usually. 'He's never lashed out before,' he explained. 'He was just protecting his home - what he's loyal to. They don't differentiate between an adult and a child when they think it's a burglar. But he certainly hasn't mauled him.' He continued: 'I've got an almost six month old baby, the Pocket Bully lies and sleeps next to him. 'I've got videos and pictures of him lying next to him licking him to death. 'I wouldn't have an aggressive dog next to my baby or my stepson.' 11 11 11 He said he has since had a call from a police officer asking if he would like both dogs euthanised, but told them no. Aaron understands there will now be an assessment process to understand if the dogs are too dangerous to be allowed home, and he could face charges - but hasn't yet been arrested. 'The police aren't responding to me, it's like they don't care,' Aaron continued. 'I'm not 100 percent what's going to happen with the dogs.' He said Staffy Bella had only escaped her cage when police arrived and antagonised Harry. Describing the scene when he arrived home, he said: 'All armed police…they were just pepper spraying them through the door, through the back door and banging on the windows, getting them all aggressive while the other armed response officers were coming through the front door, spraying loads of pepper spray on them. 'It was sickening to watch. You don't do that to someone's pet. They're telling me they're aggressive, and I'm saying if you spray me with pepper spray and wind me up I'll be aggressive as well.' Aaron and Nikki have bought Antonio a present but said they are letting the dust settle a little more before they try to speak to his family. 'We felt bad, but the fact of the matter is they need to accept their little boy was in the wrong, entering the house and they just won't accept that,' Aaron said. 'We're trying to fix things and it's just getting blown out of proportion. It was a tragic accident, there's no point torturing both dogs when one wasn't doing anything and the other isn't aggressive, he was just doing his job. 'He was just protecting his home.' Asked if one of the dogs attacked any of his children he might feel differently, Aaron said: 'If I thought the dogs were capable of doing that [a much worse attack] to the children then I wouldn't think twice, I wouldn't be keeping them. 'I know 100 percent those dogs wouldn't do anything to my kids.' He added: 'My stepson winds them up no end and they still don't do anything to him. They lick him. 'This is why I'm going so ballistic because I know my dogs are not dangerous.' EXPERT COMMENT: 'The law must tread carefully with dog attacks involving children' Rhianna Tsiattalou, Solicitor at criminal defence & civil litigation practice Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, told The Sun: 'Cases involving dangerous dogs - particularly where children are harmed are profoundly tragic, and the law must tread a careful line between protecting the public and ensuring fairness in the application of justice. "This case falls within the remit of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which makes it a criminal offence to own or be in charge of a dog that is 'dangerously out of control' in any place. This includes private property. "Where such an incident results in serious injury, harsh penalties can be imposed, including jail time. If a child is involved, courts treat the matter with particular gravity. "S3 (1A) and (1B) of the Dangerous Dogs Act provides an exemption from prosecution for householders in instances where their dog has been dangerously out of control with respect to trespassers in their home. "However, this does not apply to dog attacks on trespassers in gardens, driveways or outbuildings. "The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill, Fact Sheet: Dangerous Dogs (part 7) makes clear that this is intended to differentiate between innocently intentioned trespassers or trespassers in or entering a dwelling that are more likely to have a malign intent. "Often, individuals unaware of legal responsibilities around dog ownership face the full weight of prosecution only after tragedy occurs. "Proactive education and tighter regulation around breeding, containment, and training are therefore essential. "As lawyers, we frequently see cases where non-dangerous breeds become involved in catastrophic events, often due to a momentary lapse in containment or unpredictable behaviour. "In these instances, it is important for cases to be dealt with promptly and without excess delay due to the undesirability of keeping dogs kennelled for long periods of time (as expressed in the Home Office Guidance Circular 29/1998). "Dogs that are seized should be assessed immediately to ascertain whether they truly are a danger to the public.' Antonio's mum Amanda told The Sun: "My son was playing with their son and he went to the door while their son got a drink. "The dog ran out and attacked my son. Aaron and Nikki, the parents, weren't even in the house. They was out so maybe if they was in it could of been prevented. "That dog could have gone for anyone passing by... I'm sick of hearing hearsay." She added: "My lad's a very lucky boy." Amanda called for Aaron to release footage from his home CCTV to show what happened, but Aaron said his cameras were not recording at the time. Asked how Antonio is doing, she said: "He's doing really well - he's not been to school though and it's his birthday today (Friday)." She said doctors have warned the boy's scars will be permanent, but his mum added: "Obviously, they will fade with age and I'm going to be getting him some good oil." 'It was the worst thing ever' Amanda previously said her son had managed to run home, but was left covered in blood following the attack. He was later taken to Royal Manchester Children's Hospital where he underwent surgery. He suffered injuries to his cheeks, underneath his chin and his right thigh. Amanda, 34, said: "It was the worst thing ever, it was horrible. It was so scary. "I couldn't believe my son's face was like that, it was like something out of a horror film." The mum-of-three went on to say: "I heard a scream - you know your child's cry. "Antonio was then at the front door, he had blood all over his face and his cheeks were hanging off his face. "I was screaming, asking what's happened and then I rang the ambulance. "Luckily, the dog didn't remove any skin - they just ripped it. "They've managed to put it all back together, they've done a really good job with him." Despite Antonio's injuries, he seems to be doing well, she'd added. She said: "I thought that bringing him home from the hospital, when we've got a dog, might be an obstacle for him but he's been absolutely fine. "The dog knows that he's been injured so she hasn't left his side. "Antonio is doing okay, you can tell that he's shocked by it. "He's still in a lot of pain but he's doing well." In a Facebook post last week, Amanda said: "My son is 4 years old, he plays with my neighbour's son. "...went in the house for some juice and there dog pounced on my son and attacked him he's lucky to still be comments that are being made on the groups trying to justify the dog are sickening. "If them dogs were brought up right they should never of seen a 4 year old boy as a threat!" A Lancashire Police spokesperson said: "We're appealing for information and footage after a child suffered a dog bite in Oswaldtwistle. "We were called at shortly after 1.30pm on Monday 26th May following reports that a child had been bitten by a dog on Thwaites Road, Oswaldtwistle. "The child, a four-year-old boy, was taken to hospital with injuries to his leg and face. "Thankfully, those injuries are not life threatening. "Two dogs have been seized by police - a Staffordshire Bull Terrier type and a Pocket Bully Type and the dog owner has been identified and will be spoken to in due course." Which dog breeds are banned in the UK? THERE are specific regulations in place that prohibit certain dog breeds from being owned or bred in the UK. So what are the illegal dogs in the UK? Which dog breeds are illegal in the UK? People tend to think of large, vicious dogs when they imagine being bitten by one. But the truth is that many types of dogs are known to bite humans, whether provoked or not. However, it's important to remember that just because a breed tends to bite humans, that doesn't mean that they all do. British law determines five breeds of dog are illegal to own, breed, sell or give away. These are an XL Bully, Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro. 11
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
‘A loan to fund my divorce left me homeless and £300k in debt'
Shelley Kavanagh knew getting divorced would be expensive. But she never imagined it would leave her homeless and saddled with a six-figure debt. The 55-year-old mother-of-three went from living in a seven-bedroom house to struggling to rent a flat after taking out a loan to fund her legal costs. She said: 'By the time everything unravelled, the combined loan and legal costs had far exceeded my assets, leaving me financially ruined.' The Telegraph has spoken to several women who were advised by their solicitors to fund their divorces using huge loans that devastated their finances. The loans – provided by litigation funders – were borrowed against the marital home so they could only be repaid following the sale of the property. Until then interest piled up at a rate of 18pc. This eye-watering level of interest meant that by the time the women came to sell up, the debt had eroded the equity in their homes. Campaigners are now calling for tighter regulation of lenders trying to cash in on divorce. 'It had a direct impact on my children' Ms Kavanagh's ordeal began when she was introduced to Novitas, one of the best-known divorce lenders, in 2015 by her solicitors. A housewife at the time, she agreed to borrow £150,000 to finance her divorce. The initial interest rate was 18pc – adding £27,000 in the first year, not including other charges. By the time the divorce was over, the debt had ballooned to over £300,000. She said: 'My credit rating was destroyed, and I became homeless. This had a direct impact on my children, as my unstable housing situation meant overnight stays with me were nearly impossible. Even finding a rental property became a challenge, as landlords were reluctant to accept tenants with poor credit histories.' Ms Kavanagh, who now lives in Oxfordshire, had to move in with her father while she got back on her feet. She was only able to find accommodation after he lent her money to pay the rent in advance. She said: 'Without that support, the outcome would have been significantly different.' The Novitas loan was paid using the proceeds of the house sale, leaving Ms Kavanagh 'with very little remaining'. The lender agreed to a £50,000 reduction after she complained. But she still believes the company should not have lent to her in the first place. 'Targeted at the height of vulnerability' Launched in 2011, Novitas at one point described itself as the leading provider of loans for people going through divorce. It claimed to work with 900 law firms, according to a post on the platform Twitter, now X, from 2019. Documents show Novitas would carry out a credit check as part of an individual's application. It said it was 'unlikely' to lend if the applicant had a County Court Judgement (CCJ). Ms Kavanagh had a CCJ – yet she was lent the money anyway. She said: 'A CCJ is a clear warning sign of financial vulnerability, yet Novitas proceeded with the loan regardless. This suggests that they either failed to conduct proper credit checks or deliberately ignored red flags.' She said women like her had been presented with the loans while they were at 'the height of their vulnerability'. She added: 'We want justice for what we've been through.' 'My divorce debt snowballed to £700,000' The litigation funding industry has grown dramatically over the past decade, filling a vacuum left behind by cuts to legal aid. Lenders argue they give important financial backing to individuals pursuing fair divorce settlements. However, in recent years a number of borrowers have lodged complaints about litigation loans with the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), some of which have been upheld. Another mother introduced to Novitas by her solicitor was Rosie Heys. In 2014, Ms Heys, 59, from Oxfordshire, agreed to borrow £100,000 to cover her divorce costs. Again, this loan, which carried an 18pc interest rate, was secured against her property. At the time, she only earned about £1,000 a month working as a freelance personal assistant – although the stress of the divorce meant she eventually lost the job. As the case dragged on, Ms Heys agreed to take out additional borrowing, taking her total debt to £230,000. She instructed a different solicitor and took out a personal loan with a lower interest rate from another provider. This was used to pay the new fees and the Novitas loan. She said: 'I couldn't see a way out. I was stuck in a house I couldn't sell, with a debt that was accruing at £600 a day. I just didn't know what to do.' It took Ms Heys a decade to sell the property, with £700,000 of the proceeds used to pay off the loan. Ms Heys complained to Novitas who agreed to refund her £7,000 in interest because it had failed to provide her with regular statements about her debt. However, it did not accept her other complaints and so Ms Heys approached the FOS, which concluded in 2023 that the loan was unaffordable and that Novitas had not carried out adequate affordability checks. It ordered Novitas to refund the interest and charges, which added up to £50,000 in total, but not the capital, as this had been used to cover the solicitors' fees. In a separate case, involving a woman who borrowed £45,000, the FOS went further and instructed Novitas to refund almost her entire debt. The lender was told to cap her liability at £1,745 as this was the amount the FOS decided she might reasonably have spent on mediation. 'I wish I'd walked away and let my husband take everything' Ms Heys and Ms Kavanagh have spoken to dozens of women who also took out litigation loans that significantly impacted their finances and mental health. One mother, who asked to remain anonymous, told The Telegraph she wished she had just walked away and left her ex-husband everything rather than get divorced because at least then she would not be in debt. Ms Heys said: 'Some people are so traumatised that they just can't handle it.' She said the debt had also had a profound impact on the children of the women affected, as many were now living in rental accommodation. 'Renting in this country is very precarious because people can give you notice and get you out in two months. And that's the situation most of these children have found themselves in.' Ms Heys and Ms Kavanagh want those affected to know they may be able to seek redress through the FOS. But they also want greater awareness of the risks of litigation loans for those going through a divorce. Former MP Seema Kennedy, of campaign group Fair Civil Justice, said: 'These appalling cases highlight the urgent need for reform. Vulnerable individuals going through divorce should not be exploited by litigation funders with clear conflicts of interest, racking up excessive fees that can reach hundreds of thousands of pounds. Without proper regulation, consumers are left dangerously exposed.' Litigation loans are regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. But they are also part of the broader third-party litigation funding industry, which is largely self-regulated. Other agreements are 'non-recourse', meaning the litigation funder only gets paid if the case is successful. The Civil Justice Council this week called for 'light-touch regulation' of litigation funding following a consultation. In a report, it said complaints about litigation loans with the FOS reinforced the need 'for effective financial services and legal services regulation' and highlighted the need for consumers to be 'fully informed' about the nature of this funding. Novitas was bought by Close Brothers in 2017 in a £31m deal. However, it ceased lending to new customers in 2021 and is now in the process of being wound down. The banking group had to set aside over £100m to cover its bad loans. In its 2022 accounts, Novitas earmarked £5.3m in redress for customers who took out loans to fund divorce and probate cases.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Mystery as man dies in car after being found ‘unresponsive' outside Asda car park
A MAN has been found dead in a car outside Asda. Cops rushed to the supermarket in Leicester at 7.10am on Saturday. A man in his 70s was found unresponsive and then declared dead - though police have not released further details about the circumstances. A witness told LeicestershireLive there were multiple police cars at the scene, as well as a private ambulance and two truck. A Leicestershire Police spokesperson said: "Shortly after 7.10am on Saturday police were called after a man was found unresponsive in his car in Exploration Drive, Leicester. "Officers attended, along with the ambulance service, and the man, who is in his 70s, was declared deceased at the scene. "There are not believed to be any suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and a file will be prepared for HM Coroner." 1
