A COUPLE have condemned a decision by prosecutors to drop a court case against a pensioner whose dog was accused of breaking their pet cat's jaw.

Helen Mead and Andrew Nichols said their cat Arthur nearly died and needed £1,600-worth of veterinary treatment after the attack near their home in Earswick, near York.

Mr Nichols claimed he was also bitten on the foot by the animal, although he was protected from injury by heavy boots, and it also tried to attack another dog.

North Yorkshire Police summonsed the elderly dog owner on a charge alleging the dog injured a cat while "dangerously out of control".

When the case appeared before York Magistrates Court for the first time, the dog owner denied the charge, and District judge Adrian Lower queried whether there was sufficient evidence to convict and suggested the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) review the case, which related to a single incident.

The CPS then formally dropped the case and the woman was formally acquitted.

Mr Nichols claimed he had previously reported a prior escape by the dog to police and said he believed the case should warrant at least a caution to be issued, and he would have liked to see the dog muzzled when outside the home. "To say there is 'no evidence' is ludicrous," he added.

Malcolm Christy, Senior District Crown Prosecutor for the CPS, told The Press that dog owners had to take reasonable steps to control their dogs. "It appears from evidence submitted to us by North Yorkshire Police that the dog escaped from its garden by tunnelling under the fencing," he said.

"We have not been presented with any evidence to suggest that this was a regular occurrence or that the defendant neglected to take reasonable steps to secure the garden. The case had therefore been incorrectly charged and it is for this reason that we offered no evidence."

He acknowledged this must have been a very distressing incident and said the cat's owners were welcome to use the CPS' complaints procedure if they remained unhappy with its decision not to pursue the case.

They could also pursue a civil claim for damages against the dog owner, as the burden of proof in civil cases was lower than in criminal cases.