A DOG on death row has been dramatically spared after a court destruction order was overturned on appeal.

But the decision has been criticised by the mother of a five year old girl, who was physically and mentally scarred for life following the attack.

Mackenna Frew suffered a severe cheek injury after being bitten by an Airedale Terrier called Finlay.

As an alternative to destruction, a Dog Control Notice is to be issued against an Airedale Terrier and its owner John Johnstone.

But mum Kimberley Mullin fears he will not abide by its conditions and her daughter will be at risk again.

The 33-year-old from Hawick, said: “We have to walk past their house on the way to school every day. Mackenna has said to me that because the dog is not going away does that mean it will bite my other cheek.

“A Dog Control Notice is all very well if he stuck to the conditions but I doubt it. During the court process the dog was out without a muzzle on when it was not supposed to be and whenever we pass him he just laughs or gives us the finger.

“I feel there has been no justice at all for my daughter.” Mackenna was walking home from her nursery class in the Burnfoot housing estate in May 2013 when she was attacked by the Airedale which was on a leash and being walked by Mr Johnstone’s daughter, Karissa, who was on her mobile phone at the time.

She was accused of being in charge of a dog which was dangerously out of control, leading to the severe injury and permanent disfigurement of the child.

But the 20-year-old was found not guilty under the terms of the Dangerous Dogs Act after the sheriff ruled Karissa had “no reasonable apprehension” the dog was dangerous.

In a civil action Scottish Borders Council raised proceedings at Jedburgh Sheriff Court against Karissa’s father, John, who is the owner of the dog.

In March 2014, Sheriff Grant Hutchison ruled the dog should be destroyed and Mr Johnstone banned from owning dogs for two years.

But that decision was appealed.

This week Sheriff Principal Stephen over-ruled the destruction order and said that a Dog Control Notice should have been considered as an alternative.

A spokesman for Scottish Borders Council said: “Sheriff Principal Stephen ruled that while the dog was out of control and dangerous in the course of the incident, she believed that the original court ruling had erred in law by failing to properly consider a Dog Control Notice as an alternative to destruction.

“Sheriff Principal Stephen determined that a Dog Control Notice is sufficient and that destruction is unnecessary.

“The Sheriff Principal has directed the council to put in place a Dog Control Notice with certain conditions, which include making sure the dog is muzzled and on a lead when in public ensuring it is muzzled and controlled so that it cannot escape the owner’s home and that the dog and its owner attend a training course within six months of the notice.

“In addition the Council can apply further conditions deemed to be necessary.

“Until the Dog Control Notice is in place the Sheriff Principal has directed that undertakings given by the appelant to the court on April 23, 2014 - which are similar to the conditions that will make up the Dog Control Notice - remain in effect.

“The family of the girl who was hurt in the incident have been informed of the judgement.

“The council is in the process of finalising the terms of the Dog Control Notice and shall issue it as soon as possible.”