Since December 7th, when an armed officer shot her family dog to death in the street, 30-year-old Sophie Zaherali has developed a new morning routine. The second she wakes up, before she makes coffee, she’s on the phone to 101 asking for an update on the case. She wants to ensure that an email about her latest query has landed in the relevant officer’s inbox by the time their shift begins.
Her efforts don’t stop there. In addition to posting frequently on a Facebook group dedicated to securing justice for her beloved pet Ghost, Sophie also visits Snig Hill Police Station in person on an almost daily basis. On one occasion, she even put up posters around the building with a photo of the officer who shot him, to let other officers know what he’d done. There was a protest outside this station on January 4th, which some supporters travelled from other cities to attend, and she has another organised for March 1st. Her message to South Yorkshire Police is abundantly clear: this isn’t just going to go away.
These days, perhaps understandably, the sergeant investigating the incident isn’t replying to her calls or texts. She speaks to an inspector in the force instead. During their conversation on Christmas Eve, he apparently told her: “Genuinely, Sophie, I know you don’t believe this but I really hope you have a good Christmas”. She tells me she laughed at him, took Christmas off and then got back in touch once more on Boxing Day.
“As soon as someone unbiased looks into this,” she tells me, when I visit her salon in Hillsborough, “I’m confident I’m going to get everything I’m asking for.” Her demands of South Yorkshire Police are threefold. First, she wants them to clear Ghost’s name, admitting that the XL Bully was not a dangerous dog. Secondly, she wants his body back so the family can bury him. And, finally, she wants the officer who killed him to be suspended, investigated and — ideally — sacked. “I believe he doesn’t deserve to hold a police badge,” she says.
Other than assuring Sophie that Ghost’s body will eventually be returned, South Yorkshire Police is showing no signs that it plans to budge. When contacted by The Tribune, the force provided a written statement from Chief Inspector Emma Cheney, explaining that all frontline officers, including armed officers, receive specific training on how to respond to and contain dangerous dogs. “Dangerous dogs continue to be an emerging threat to our communities and are placing unprecedented demand on our force,” she writes, adding that more than 1,000 people were injured by dogs across South Yorkshire last year. “Our priority remains to keep the public and officers safe.”
South Yorkshire Police isn’t just committed to keeping its officers safe from dogs — it’s also keen to keep them safe from Sophie. Though the skinny aesthetician is not an imposing figure, some of the young mum’s social media posts apparently have the force very concerned. A few days after Ghost’s death, she attended a voluntary interview at the station regarding suspected “malicious communications,” after musing on Facebook whether she would be justified in shooting a police officer just because she felt he was dangerous. “I held my hands up and said I was emotional, I shouldn’t have said that,” she tells me. “But I was not saying I was going to do it or that it should be done.”
On 3rd January, the day before her scheduled protest, Sophie was arrested after another Facebook post, which asked if anyone could identify a man who was present when Ghost died. He was a witness to the incident, South Yorkshire Police argued, which meant her post was possibly witness intimidation. The witness in question? The officer who shot her dog.
Sophie insists she is not a violent person and would never wish harm on anyone. “That’s exactly what Ghost didn’t stand for,” she tells me. “He just loved.” Her ex-partner Wayne Hudson bought the dog for their family before XL Bullies were banned in February, when it became illegal to own one without a Certificate of Exemption, and she immediately complied with the new laws. But the question that is most central to this entire debacle is not about Sophie; it’s whether, on the basis of what he saw and heard that day, an armed officer justifiably believed the dog was a credible threat. And, if he didn’t, then why did he shoot to kill?
To read the rest of this article, you need to become a paying subscriber. Click below to upgrade.
SubscribeAlready have an account? Sign In
12 Comments
A tricky story reported without judgement either way that leaves the reader to form an opinion given what is presented to them. I guess that is proper journalism. I have an opinion but as Jonathan states given ongoing legal proceedings I’ll keep to myself.
I am disappointed that in what appears to be a carefully detailed objective reporting of this difficult case, you decided to describe Sophie as a “skinny” aesthetician.
What relevance did that adjective have?
Hi Sue, appreciate why that word stood out to you. I was trying to indicate why she isn’t someone who would seem physically threatening - “small” might have avoided this pitfall but she’s not actually that short, so didn’t feel accurate.
Skinny has pejorative overtones. Please try for ‘slim’ in future? Though even that might be an issue!
I agree, Elaine. Maybe ’Sophie, an aesthetician who certainly does not appear physically threatening” would have explained what Victoria meant (I certainly didn’t grasp it) without inadvertently being judgemental.
RIP Keeley Thornton. It’s sad when a human being can’t be helped back from a lethal lifestyle.
I hope that anyone who mocked her, or encouraged her degradation, or gave her intoxicants to see her do her thing, will reflect on their conduct.
This seems to be a case of dog owner who fails to control their dog, a dog bred for violence and subject to controls, blaming anyone but themself for the death of said dog. Whether the response was too severe is another question, but the blame lies squarely at the owner’s door for not abiding with the law. It’s negligence and how is a member of the public or the police meant to know whether a dangerous dog breed is likely to attack someone?
This story would have been very different if said dog would have killed a child but the fact remains that negligence caused the situation.
Absolutely. She admits it was a scary dog that she failed to control, and this breed kills more people than all the others put together. Seems like she’s massively wasting police time as well.
This is a rare occasion I’m disappointed to read a Tribune article. It’s one sided, emotional rather than factual and misses out on a lot of detail.
The dog had been seized before
The dog escaped and therefore the exemption became invalid and would therefore have been seized as a minimum.
The dog wasn’t charged with anything, there is nothing to clear
The owner is responsible, and regardless of whether the dog did or didn’t bite someone, the law was broken and she has been charged accordingly.
The owner has posted pictures of officers, names, a great deal of venom, and a lot of offence. Not a mature way to deal with a formal complaint, and can’t be taking any notice of solicitor advice.
So much more …
The piece reads like a criticism of SYP, without placing the blame with the owner.
Mm. The fate of domestic animals under our control is filled with pathos. Probably the dog should never have been brought into existence in the first place. But he was: and he became a valued and loved family member. The rest was misadventure.
How to comment:
If you are already a member,
click here to sign in
and leave a comment.
If you aren’t a member,
sign up here
to be able to leave a comment.
To add your photo, click here to create a profile on Gravatar.
Bearing in mind the ongoing legal proceedings it’s not right to speculate in detail but it does seem somewhat overkill to shoot first and ask questions later in the case.