An identical charge of allowing the dog to cause injury in a public place was dropped against the Princess’s husband, Commodore Tim Laurence, or defendant 2595663.The Princess, dressed in her trademark navy cardigan and high-collared blouse, was spared the necessity of sitting in the glass-panelled dock and remained instead by the side of her barrister. Her two children, Sara and Peter, were also in court.The court then heard how the two victims – aged seven and 12 – had frozen in panic as Dotty suddenly sprinted away from her owner.The Princess, 52, had been walking in a fenced-off section of Windsor Great Park with Commodore Laurence, 47, on 1 April – two days after the death of the Queen Mother – when the incident took place.At about 3.40pm, the two cousins, who are Asian, had crested a hill in the company of the younger boy’s father and two more of his nephews, only to find Dotty running at them from 150 metres away.Anthony Smith, the Crown Prosecution Service solicitor, told the court: “The youngest boy came off his bike as the dog jumped up to him. The father arrived on the scene to find his son fighting off the dog. The father kicked the dog away from his son, who was trying to stand up. He kicked the dog away again.”The dog then turned its attentions to the older boy, who had ridden back when he heard the commotion and was again knocked to the ground amid a flurry of growls and scratches.Mr Smith added: “The dog came back towards the boys on several occasions and was kept off them by the father.

Commodore Laurence attempted to catch the dog but it ran off.”Dotty eventually ran back to the Princess, who set about locking Dotty in her car before she rushed to the aid of the two boys and their father. She packed up the bikes, washed their wounds and brought them back to their own car so they could be brought to hospital, the court heard.As a result of the attack, the youngest boy suffered a puncture wound to his collar bone and two bites to his left thigh. The 12-year-old had scratches to his right forearm and the back of his left leg.Both boys were left “traumatised” by the incident and deeply distrustful of all dogs, Mr Smith added as he submitted photographs of their injuries to District Judge Penelope Hewitt.The court was told that the Princess was liable to six months in jail or a fine of up to £5,000. Dotty, like Charles Stuart, faced execution, albeit by lethal injection.But the result was less severe. The dog was ordered to undergo retraining to cure its taste for chasing bikes and to wear a lead at all in times in public until it had done so.Its owner was fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 compensation to each of the two boys as well as meeting prosecution costs of £148.The reason for such enlightened justice, it seemed, had been a question of incisors.Hugo Keith, for the Princess, told the court that a forensic dental surgeon, Luigi Caparelli, had examined the wounds inflicted by the dog and compared them with Dotty’s jaws. The result, he said, was proof that Dotty had used her gentler incisor teeth, rather than her canines, to inflict the wounds on the boys.

In a written statement, Mr Caparelli explained that the incisors were mostly used for harmless activities such as play, eating and removing parasites.Seeking to distance Dotty from the predatory Rottweilers and pitbulls targeted by the Dangerous Dogs Act, Mr Keith said: “This case is quite unlike those notorious cases which have come before these courts in which children have been savagely attacked. The evidence points to Dotty having used her incisor teeth rather than having opened her mouth fully and using her aggressive canine teeth.”The court heard that a specialist dog psychologist, Dr Roger Monkford, had also spent two hours assessing Dotty and training her to leave bicycles alone by use of a remote-controlled device which shocks the dog with inert gas when it behaves wrongly.All of which was enough to satisfy Mrs Hewitt that matters should be drawn to a close as she asked the Princess, if “you would be so kind”, to stand up and face her sentence. She told the court that although the two boys had suffered a lot, Dotty’s owners were “extremely responsible” and would adhere to the retraining order.After the verdict, the families of the victims underlined the lingering effects of the attack on the two boys, saying they would have preferred to see the bull terrier destroyed.. A former Roman Catholic priest and Gatwick airport chaplain was a “practising and predatory paedophile” who systematically abused children in his care throughout his 20-year ministry, the Old Bailey was told yesterday. The judge added: “You employed a considerable degree of planning and cunning in gaining the trust of the parents of the children you abused I can think of no greater … breach of trust.”At an earlier hearing, Hill, of Lingfield, Surrey, pleaded guilty to six offences of indecent assault against three boys aged 10 to 14. The offences took place between 1969 and 1987.Hill was jailed in 1997 for five years for 10 offences against eight boys.

The later charges arose from admissions he made at a sex offenders’ clinic. The judge ordered that a further eight charges involving three victims who came forward after the first court case should remain on the file.The Archbishop of Westminster, Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, gave Hill the Gatwick post in 1985, when the Cardinal was Bishop of the Arundel and Brighton diocese. At Gatwick, Hill abused a wheelchair-bound boy of 13 while he was suspended from the priesthood after allegations of abuse.David Jeremy, for the prosecution, said Hill was ordained as a priest in 1960. “Throughout his ministry, he systematically abused the children of families to whom he was a spiritual guide,” he said.Despite complaints, the priest was moved from parish to parish. He received therapy in 1981 but then committed two of the assaults for which he was jailed yesterday.In 1983, he was suspended and given treatment He was given the Gatwick post shortly afterwards.. HUNDREDS MORE suspects already found innocent by a jury could face a second trial for the same offence under a far-reaching change to the ancient law of double jeopardy.