Fatal Hamilton baby mauling: Dog owner to go on trial in February

The 22-year-old will go on trial over the "truly tragic" case in February.

The owner of a dog that mauled a day-old Hamilton baby to death will keep his name secret until the end of his trial because of mental health issues.

The accused, now 22 years old, owned a dog - which has since been put down - that snatched a sleeping newborn baby, before attacking it and attempting to bury it at an Enderley house in October 2020.

The man denies owning a dog that caused serious injury or death to a person.

In the Hamilton District Court today, Judge Jonathan Down confirmed a trial date for February.

However, the accused’s name suppression was at the centre of the hearing today, with counsel Charles Bean urging Judge Down to take into account his client’s fragile mental health and the impact the lifting of suppression could have on him.

Crown prosecutor Danielle Young suggested suppression last for only as long as it took for the accused to seek mental health treatment.

However, Bean said since the last hearing, in August, the appointments had been delayed because of Covid restrictions and he was yet to get any help.

Judge Down sympathised with the accused and said the case was "dreadful" and "truly tragic".

It centred around how the newborn baby’s mother came home and put the baby to bed before leaving the room.

Somehow the dog - a rottweiler - entered the house, suspected to be through an insecure door and took the baby.

The baby died.

Judge Down said it was “the very type of case” to attract a “media frenzy”.

He said anyone would find being held responsible "for such a horrific incident is going to find it very difficult indeed".

"The question is whether the defendant's struggles reach the legal threshold of extreme hardship."

He said a young man was facing a situation that “might be described as his worst nightmare”.

“He is in a vulnerable position, in circumstances where media and the public are likely to be very vocal in expressing their views about him and about what should happen to him.

"I'm very concerned that if his name is publicised prior to the conclusion of any trial that the level of vitriol that he may be subjected to would push him over the edge."

Judge Down said if the accused was found not guilty, and his name had already been published, that stigma would remain with him for many years "or the rest of his life".

"And in my view for such a young man that would not only be dangerous but deeply unfair."

Judge Down concluded there was "no primary need for the public to be aware of the name of [the accused] charged with this dreadful offence".

The accused’s name suppression will be readdressed once a verdict is reached at trial.