The breed has been described as “notorious” and “capable of extreme violence”.
A “huge” and “powerful” XL Bully dog suddenly attacked a terrified five-year-old boy, biting down on his head without any warning and leaving him with severe injuries.
The youngster had simply asked to see the “puppy” after his mum brought him to the house where the dog had been kept. The breed has been described as “notorious” and “capable of extreme violence”, reports Hull Live.
He had expected to meet a small, friendly puppy but was instead subjected to a shocking attack that left him permanently scarred and disfigured. Hull Crown Court heard that the young woman who owned the potentially “dangerous” XL Bully had left it with her mother while she went on holiday, but no safety measures had been put in place.
Courteney Chearman, 26, of Steynburg Street, east Hull, denied being the owner of a dog that caused injury while dangerously out of control on May 27 last year but she was convicted by a jury after a trial. Her mum, Victoria Marks, 48, also of Steynburg Street, admitted being in charge of a dog that was dangerously out of control.
The court heard that Chearman was the owner of an 11-month-old XL Bully, called Chappy. The dog had been one of 12 puppies born in June 2023 to an XL Bully owned by Chearman’s then boyfriend.
They decided to keep Chappy but the relationship broke down. Chappy, then two months old, was later looked after exclusively by Chearman, reports Hull Live.
The XL Bully breed was declared illegal to own, with current owners required to obtain an exemption certificate. Chearman had begun the application process but it was not yet complete.
She decided to go on a caravan holiday with her four year old daughter for five days and left the dog in the care of Marks, who at the time was residing with her cousin on Brazil Street, Hull. Although Marks was familiar with the dog, it had never stayed with her before.
Prosecutor Claire Holmes revealed that the dog’s crate, its usual sleeping place, was not brought to Marks’ residence. There was no discussion between Chearman and Marks regarding safety measures, such as a dog gate or barrier, in case of visitors.
The XL Bully, despite still being officially classified as a puppy, was described as a “large, powerful dog”. “Dogs are unpredictable and he was a dangerous dog breed,” stated Miss Holmes.
“No precautions were taken to protect anyone who visited the house.”
Chearman had evidently thought: “It’ll be fine.”
However, Miss Holmes added: “It wasn’t fine.”
A woman and her five year old son, who was eager to see the “puppy”, arrived at the house. They were allowed entry – but the boy was attacked by the XL Bully.
“It all happened very quickly,” Miss Holmes explained. “The attack was almost instantaneous. Attacks like this do happen unpredictably.”
The boy was the first one through the door when the dog pounced and attacked. The bystanders attempted to pull the dog away from the boy, who was subsequently rushed to hospital. The attack resulted in the loss of part of his scalp and necessitated a skin graft on half of his head.
The hair will not regrow in that area, leaving him permanently scarred.
Miss Holmes commented: “It could have been much worse, as bad as it was,” adding that the boy thankfully doesn’t recall much of the incident. However, he has developed a fear of dogs.
Upon seeing a dog in public, he trembles with fear and is absolutely terrified. His mother later referred to the attacking dog as a “beast” and “huge”, with a “massive” head.
The police seized the dog, which was euthanized in October of the previous year.
While Chearman had no prior convictions, Marks had previously served time for a burglary. Although she wasn’t present during the actual raid, she provided information about £20,000 cash at the targeted location.
Jazmine Lee, representing Chearman, stated that a young child had been harmed by a “notorious breed” dog – “one we have heard lots about in headline news over the last few years”. She described it as a “horror” case but maintained that Chearman believed she was “doing everything right” as an owner.
There had been no previous issues with the dog, which Chearman described as “daft” and “playful”. There were never any signs of agitation or aggression.
“There was never any reason to doubt him,” Miss Lee said. “She was an experienced dog handler. This was her second XL Bully.
“She had no reason to believe that her beloved Chappy was aggressive to anyone. She could not have foreseen what he did do. Her mother had a good relationship with Chappy.
“There had never been any issues – only positive interactions. She believed that her mother was completely prepared and up to speed to have Chappy. She was wrong to trust her mother. She has taken this as a strong lesson.”
Chearman informed the court that she now had only “fish” and no pets.
Oliver Shipley, representing Marks, said the dog attack had a profound impact on her and she had undergone counselling for it. “She was injured during the course of trying to stop the attack or, at least, help,” said Mr Shipley.
Marks attempted to drag the boy away from the dog but she could not release the animal from him, the court heard. The dog bit Marks while she was trying to prise it from the child.
She sustained hand injuries. She had said she would never look after a dog again. She had suffered flashbacks of trying to drag the dog off the boy.
She felt helpless at the time. Marks had used drugs in the past and she smoked cannabis from the age of 13. She was on crack cocaine while living with her cousin but she was not under the influence of drugs at the time of the dog attack.
Marks was no longer using drugs and she had moved away from associates who used drugs. She was providing negative drug tests and was looking for work.
Judge Mark Bury said that, “all of a sudden”, Chappy’s jaws “locked on to” the boy’s head, causing serious injuries to his scalp. “XL Bullies are known to be capable of extreme violence,” said Judge Bury.
He told Chearman: “You wanted to go on holiday with your daughter for a few days. You wanted someone to look after Chappy.”
Chearman brought the dog to her mother’s home.
“You genuinely thought that she was a fit and proper person,” said Judge Bury. “It’s clear to me that Victoria Marks was not a fit and proper person.
“No safety requirements or measures had been put in place. He was allowed to roam freely in the house. You were happy just to leave Chappy with your mum and leave her to look after him.
“As a responsible dog owner, you should have done more than that. You were genuinely shocked and upset by what happened.”
Judge Bury told Marks: “While you were in charge of Chappy, he caused a very serious injury to a young boy. That injury will be permanent and it’s a disfiguring injury.
“He has already undertaken skin grafts. The hair on one side of his head will never grow back. Serious though that is, it could have been worse.
“You were not a fit and proper person to look after him. You are more to blame than your daughter. She trusted you to look after him. You singularly failed to do that.
“It was foreseeable that there might come a time when he would show aggression. He’s a powerful dog. You didn’t take your responsibility anywhere near seriously enough. “There is no way that anyone should have been allowed to have contact with Chappy other than you. You simply did not give any sufficient thought to his safety or the safety of others.”
Chearman was ordered to complete 70 hours’ unpaid work. Marks received a one-year suspended prison sentence, 150 hours’ unpaid work and 15 days’ rehabilitation.
She was banned from keeping a dog for 10 years. No such ban was imposed on Chearman.
