Get the inside track on the big stories from Liverpool Crown Court with our weekly newsletter Subscribe now Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Two brothers responsible for a dangerous dog that savaged a little girl's hand today walked free from court.

Liam and Michael McLoughlin knew the female American Bulldog had previously attacked another child.

Michael was hit with a dog control order earlier this year and warned how to manage the two-year-old, called Lola.

But she struck again when a girl knocked on the door of their home in Stoneridge Court, Beechwood, Wirral on May 5.

(Image: Lynda Roughley)

Liverpool Crown Court heard Liam, 28, answered the door - opening it "wide" - to speak to the victim, who was with another little girl.

Philip Hall, prosecuting, said: "Suddenly the dog Lola pushed past Liam and latched onto her left hand and started to rag her to the ground."

The victim said it felt like she was being attacked for a couple of minutes - while Liam just watched - before she escaped and ran home.

Mr Hall said: "She told her mum at no point did Liam try to intervene. It was fortunate Lola didn't cause any further injury."

Video Loading Video Unavailable Click to play Tap to play The video will start in 8 Cancel Play now

The woman immediately recognised her daughter "screaming in pain" outside, the noise of which she said was "horrendous".

The girl was taken to hospital, where she required stitches to repair the wound, under general anaesthetic.

She spent two days in hospital and there was concern over nerve damage to the end of her little finger, but it healed well.

The girl had to visit hospital twice a week for two months to have the wound scrubbed and redressed.

(Image: Liverpool Echo)

She found this "extremely painful and distressing" and has been left with a permanent scar to her hand.

The girl is now "incredibly fearful of dogs" and her family described the ordeal as very upsetting.

They later learned the McLoughlins contacted police that day and contributed to a fee to have Lola put down.

Michael, 32, who was out shopping, said he came home straight away and made the arrangements.

Lola first bit a child last October, resulting in the order on March 1 this year, but no criminal prosecution.

Mr Hall said it was made "because of a similar incident when the dog burst through the door and bit a child".

Michael admitted failing to have Lola insured - one of the requirements of the order - for financial reasons.

Liam said he had been told by Michael to keep Lola secure in a cage before opening the front door.

However, he said he had opened the cage door slightly and she ran past him.

Mr Hall said: "He said he didn't react initially because he didn't want to make the situation worse."

(Image: Lynda Roughley)

Liam said he thought the dog only had hold of the girl's sleeve and Lola let go when he shouted her name.

He admitted being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control and Michael admitted being its owner.

Michael has four convictions for 12 offences, all related to drug and driving matters.

Liam has seven convictions for 13 offences, including assault and alcohol-linked offences.

Sarah Griffin, defending, said the brothers were "genuinely remorseful" and this was shown by how they reacted afterwards.

She said they were sad for the victim and also the child who witnessed the incident.

Ms Griffin said Liam had a job and a flat of his own, but would lose both if he was jailed.

She said Michael had three children and was "extremely concerned" about the impact of him being jail upon them.

Ms Griffin said Michael suffered from gastric issues and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

She said he had been let go from two jobs because of his health issues and was on benefits.

Ms Griffin said neither of the brothers intended to keep dogs ever again.

(Image: Lynda Roughley)

Judge Robert Warnock said the consequences of their actions were "graphically" illustrated.

The judge said: "It must have been a terrifying experience for that girl.

"It came about in my view because of the respective irresponsibility of each of you and selfish disregard to the control order and the obvious dangerous nature of that dog."

He said if they had been convicted after a trial he would have jailed them, but their guilty pleas, remorse and behaviour since made it possible for him to spare them prison.

Judge Warnock gave them 16 months in jail, suspended for two years, a 15-day Rehabilitation Activity Requirement and 200 hours of unpaid work.

He banned the brothers from owning a dog for life and told them each to pay £500 in compensation to their victim.