Thanks for that Jo. A few pertinent facts which are now probably pertinent to mention.
The WPC asked the 'victims' to keep and eye out for the family member during the following few weeks so that they could identify her and the dog.
My wife and ANOTHER DOG( hairy and not smooth coated ) was identified by them. They confronted my wife and accused her of being in charge of the offending dog. It WASN'T even my wife or the dog. When she correctly denied this fact they insinuated that she was lying. The person involved in the actual incident was another family member with a DIFFERENT dog.
'My blood started to boil' as they had falsely accused my wife in lieu of the other family member. Surely mis-identification of the dog as well as the dog walker would be strong as a point of defence.
Also there was no mention of muzzling the dog at all by the WPC.
Many thanks, ***** ***** I await your reply.