What began as an ordinary day on a countryside farm turned into a heartbreaking nightmare for one family—and now, the boy’s parents are facing the legal consequences of what the court called a failure in responsibility.
A young boy’s death after a dog attack has raised serious concerns about safety, supervision, and dangerous animals in family environments.
Three-Year-Old Dies After Being Mauled by Guard Dogs
Little Daniel Twigg was just three years old when he wandered into a pen housing two massive guard dogs at Carr Farm in Rochdale, Greater Manchester.
The animals—Sid, a Cane Corso, and Tiny, a Boerboel-type breed—were each about 50kg and known for their strength and power.
Tragically, Daniel was fatally mauled in what prosecutors described as a “furious and prolonged” attack.
His parents, Mark Twigg (43) and Joanne Bedford (37), were charged with being responsible for a dog dangerously out of control that caused injury resulting in death.
A jury found them guilty after 17.5 hours of deliberation over a three-week trial held at Manchester Crown Court.
However, both were acquitted of the more serious charge of gross negligence manslaughter.
Emotional Courtroom Reactions and Legal Implications
When the verdicts were announced, Bedford broke down in tears while Twigg showed no reaction.
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, having a dangerous dog that leads to someone’s death can result in up to 14 years in prison.
The couple’s sentencing is set for October 10.
Details of the Day Daniel Was Killed
According to Bedford’s testimony, she had just bathed Daniel and went upstairs to fetch a pair of shorts for him.
He was briefly left with a young relative downstairs.
Bedford, who was seven months pregnant at the time, also needed to use the toilet.
That’s when she heard screaming.
The relative reportedly told her, “Daniel is in the dog pen. He’s face down and there’s blood everywhere.”
Bedford raced downstairs and into the yard where she found Sid standing over Daniel’s body, while Tiny lingered nearby.
She said she tried to scare the dogs away and called emergency services while attempting CPR on her son.
Warning Signs Were Reported but Not Heeded
Evidence presented in court showed that there had been prior concerns about the dogs.
The RSPCA had issued warnings, and just three days before the attack, staff from Rochdale Council’s Children’s Services visited the farm.
They noted signs of neglect and were worried Daniel might be at risk from the animals.
Despite these warnings, Daniel’s parents insisted they did not consider the dogs dangerous.
They claimed the animals belonged to the farm’s owner, Matthew Brown, but acknowledged they were taking care of them at the time.
The prosecution argued that this made them responsible for ensuring Daniel’s safety.
Claims of Safety and Conflicting Accounts
Bedford testified that Daniel was familiar with the animals and was never left alone with them.
She said she always ensured he was supervised.
However, phone records revealed she had accessed Facebook briefly around the time of the attack.
She claimed she didn’t remember doing so and was overwhelmed with fear and guilt.
There were also inconsistencies in Bedford’s statements.
For instance, she didn’t initially mention going to the toilet during police interviews.
When questioned about it, she explained that she was afraid of being judged as a neglectful parent and was suffering from post-traumatic stress.
Safety Measures Were Not Secure Enough
The court also examined how the dog pen was secured.
Instead of a padlock, the gate had a simple Karabiner clip, which the prosecution argued was too easy for a curious toddler to open.
The couple had also previously exchanged messages discussing fears and frustrations about living on the farm, with Bedford reportedly texting Twigg that she was “living in fear.”
She later admitted she wanted to return to their former home in Manchester and even told a neighbor she felt “terrorised” because the dogs escaped frequently.
Questions Remain About the Dogs’ Behavior
While it’s still unclear if both dogs were involved in the fatal attack, Sid—the Cane Corso—was identified as the most likely aggressor.
He was shot dead at the scene.
A post-mortem showed he hadn’t eaten in at least half a day, while Tiny had been previously described by a neighbor as “dangerous” and a “ticking time bomb.”
Final Moments and Desperate Actions
After discovering Daniel’s condition, Bedford tried everything she could.
She pulled him away from the dogs, tried to perform CPR, and even asked a neighbor, who came armed with a knife, to kill the dogs so they wouldn’t hurt anyone else.
Despite these desperate efforts, Daniel was pronounced dead after being rushed to the hospital.
Awaiting Sentencing Amid Public Outcry
The court determined that Daniel had likely been alone in the dog pen for up to 20 minutes.
The parents, according to prosecutors, should have known he was capable of getting into the pen unsupervised.
With sentencing still ahead, public attention remains focused on what will happen next—and how future tragedies like this can be prevented.