A BUILDER has been jailed and an order made that his guard dog be destroyed after the animal attacked three people.

Keith Kendrick had already appeared in court and a contingent destruction order made in respect of his large dog, a Caucasian Ovcharka, after it bit a delivery driver at industrial premises near Holywell.

But Mold Crown Court heard how the dog knocked over a schoolboy and, in a separate incident, the animal targeted a police officer who went to the premises when he spotted shutter doors open in the early hours of the morning.

An initial allegation that he had set the dog on the police officer, who was bitten to the buttocks, was not pursued.

Kendrick, 35, of Greenfield Road, Greenfield, Holywell, admitted two charges of owning a dog which caused injury when dangerously out of control.

He was jailed for eight months and Judge Niclas Parry said that while it gave him no pleasure at all, the dog constituted a danger to public safety and would have to be destroyed.

The court heard the dog, named Duke, was already in police custody and it had cost the force £2,372 to kennel it since November.

Judge Parry said there was increasing concern at the number of dogs being kept by ordinary people and not being properly controlled. Sadly there had been many incidents of serious injury or worse.

Very rarely did such cases involve deliberate acts, where dogs were used as a weapon.

“They arise because people don’t take care,” he said.

Kendrick had been given a chance previously when his dog bit a delivery driver and a protective order had been made.

“It is recognised that people can make mistakes,” he said.

But his dog had gone on to injure two other people in separate incidents.

On November 6 – the day after his previous court appearance – the dog which should have been on a lead and muzzled was running in and out of traffic and attacked a child.

That was after an incident in September when the dog was aggressive and attacked a police officer twice leaving him with puncture wounds and bruising.

Kendrick had displayed strenuous opposition to police seizing his dog when a reasonable man would have seen it was sensible for the protection of the public for the animal to kept out of his control.

Judge Parry said Kendrick had a poor record with previous convictions for 59 offences including violence and one serious charge of kidnapping.

Barrister Oliver King, prosecuting, said PC Scott Malin was on patrol just after midnight on September 14 when he went to went to investigate open shutters and a light at the premises which had previously been the subject of burglary.

He shouted “Hello, police” several times, heard a dog barking and saw Kendrick approach with a large dog at his side.

The officer immediately identified himself but it seemed Kendrick did not hear him.

The dog which was three feet tall and 50 kilos in weight bolted for the officer.

Mr King said the officer retreated back to the patrol car but the dog bit him on the buttocks.

Kendrick ran towards the dog shouting at him to stop but it continued to chase the officer and bit him a second time on the roadway before the owner took control of it.

He apologised and indicated that he thought the officer might have been an intruder.

In a separate incident a schoolboy stopped when he saw the dog on the pavement ahead, the dog saw him and started to bark and chased after him.

It jumped up on his back and he fell to the floor grazing his hands and knees.

Kendrick had apologised to the boy and to his father and had offered compensation.

He pleaded with the father not to make a complainant.

Defence barrister Simon Rogers said his client had shown remorse and had apologised to those concern.

It was conceded he had been lax and the dog had got out when the gate had been damaged.

The boy was injured by being knocked over and had not been bitten, said Mr Rogers, but it was accepted it had been a terrifying incident.

Mr Rogers said there was no suggestion that Kendrick knew it was a police officer and no suggestion that he directed the dog to attack the officer.

His client had made real efforts and among the 10 or so references speaking of his good qualities was a letter from an association which trained dogs and their owners.

He worked as a builder and also let buildings at the premises he owned.

“While he has been negligent or reckless, these are not deliberate acts by him where he intended members of the public to be harmed,” he said.

Judge Parry said he would not make an order banning the defendant from having dogs.

He said: “It would not be proportionate or necessary to ban you from owning any dogs.

“All this relates to one animal which will be destroyed.”