swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Animals - From: 1996 To: 1996
This page lists 9 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.
Bates v United Kingdom 26280/95; Unreported, 16 January 1996
16 Jan 1996
ECHR
Human Rights, Animals, Crime
The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act. Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5
1 Citers
Jaundrill v Gillett; CA 30-Jan-1996 - Times, 30 January 1996
Greener v Director of Public Prosecutions Times, 15 February 1996
15 Feb 1996
QBD
Animals, Crime
The offence committed by a dog owner by his failure to secure the dog successfully, was capable of being committed by acts of omission.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(3)
Associazione Italiana per il WWF and others C-118/94 [1996] EUECJ C-118/94
7 Mar 1996
ECJ
Animals
ECJ (Judgment) 1. Pursuant to the division of judicial functions between national courts and the Court of Justice provided for by Article 177 of the Treaty, the Court gives preliminary rulings where the questions referred concern the interpretation of a provision of Community law without, in principle, having to look into the circumstances in which the national courts were prompted to submit questions and envisage applying the provision of Community law which they have asked the Court to interpret.
The matter would be different only if it were apparent either that the procedure provided for in Article 177 had been misused and was in fact being used to have the Court give a ruling when there was no genuine dispute or that the provision of Community law referred to the Court for interpretation was manifestly incapable of applying.
2. Article 9(1) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, which provides for the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the general prohibition on hunting protected species laid down in Articles 5 and 7 of the directive where there is no other satisfactory solution and for one of the reasons listed exhaustively therein, and Article 9(2), which defines the precise formal conditions for such derogations, must be interpreted as authorizing the Member States to grant those derogations only by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2).
In a sphere in which the management of the common heritage is entrusted to the Member States in their respective territories, faithful transposition of directives becomes particularly important.
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Haringey Magistrates, ex parte Cragg Times, 08 November 1996; [1996] EWHC Admin 162
28 Oct 1996
Admn
Animals
A dangerous dog case was not to be allowed to be brought again after previous acquittal of the same dog and owner.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
[ Bailii ]
Langridge, Canterbury City Council v Howletts and Port Lympne Estates; Admn 27-Nov-1996 - Times, 13 December 1996; [1996] EWHC Admin 282
Colfox v Dorset County Council [1996] EWHC Admin 337
10 Dec 1996
Admn
Animals, Crime
Dogs Act 1906
[ Bailii ]
Ligue Royale Belge pour la Protection des Oiseaux and Societe d'etudes Ornithologiques AVES v Region Wallonne; ECJ 12-Dec-1996 - [1996] ECR I-6775; C-10/96; [1996] EUECJ C-10/96
Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe [1996] EWHC Admin 380
18 Dec 1996
Admn
Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins
Crime, Animals, Magistrates
The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4). Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant's means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5(4) 5(5)
[ Bailii ]
