1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Application for leave to appeal against a ruling given by His Honour Judge Gibson as to how he would address the jury in a case of an offence under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Rottweiler with no history of aggression attacking passer by.
Appeal from two concurrent nine month sentences for being the owner of a dog which was dangerously out of control. The charges were in the aggravated form created by section 3(1)(d) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as each dog had caused injuries to a . .
Challenge to dog destruction orders, Citations:  EWHC 330 (Admin),  EWHC 331 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 4B Jurisdiction: England and Wales Animals Updated: 30 May 2022; Ref: scu.634209
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, … Continue reading Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates’ Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe: Admn 18 Dec 1996
A dangerous dog case was not to be allowed to be brought again after previous acquittal of the same dog and owner. Citations: Times 08-Nov-1996,  EWHC Admin 162 Links: Bailii Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Animals Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136710
Justices were free to convict without notice from Defendant of his intention to bring evidence in rebuttal. Citations: Ind Summary 25-Oct-1993 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5 Animals Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80056
Unawareness due to drink is no defence to a charge of allowing the escape of a dangerous dog. Citations: Times 14-Jul-1994, Ind Summary 11-Jul-1994 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 1(1) Animals Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80023
A dog was in a public place even when the area was fenced off where it could be deemed to be public by virtue of public ownership. Private agreement between neighbours to fence of an area is insufficient. Citations: Times 26-Mar-1999,  EWHC Admin 171 Links: Bailii Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1), Dangerous Dogs … Continue reading Cummings v Director of Public Prosecutions: Admn 26 Mar 1999
A car may be a public place for a dog for the purposes of the Act. Citations: Ind Summary 29-Mar-1993 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Animals Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78287
A dog’s being sick is no excuse for unmuzzling it. The Act is intentionally punitive. Citations: Ind Summary 28-Mar-1994 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 1(1) Animals Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79134
Exempt Dogs Index entry didn’t lapse for failure to tattoo a dog before 22 November 1992. Citations: Ind Summary 03-May-1993 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Animals Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.86375
A Boxer dog had attacked and bitten two children on a swing in a children’s play park. The court found that the dog which was in the charge of the appellant entered the play area. It was not on a lead. It approached the swings and circled round them and then started to bark and … Continue reading Tierney v Valentine: 1994
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 … Continue reading Bates v United Kingdom: ECHR 16 Jan 1996
Judges: Treacy LJ, Sales J Citations:  EWHC 666 (Admin),  WLR(D) 194 Links: Bailii, WLRD Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 4B Jurisdiction: England and Wales Animals Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.608929
An order to destroy a dog was not to be made without notification of the owner; not just the animal’s keeper. Dog not to be destroyed for fault of handler without informing dog’s owner. Citations: Times 09-Dec-1995, Ind Summary 01-Jan-1996 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 1(2)(d) Animals Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.86602
The offence committed by a dog owner by his failure to secure the dog successfully, was capable of being committed by acts of omission. Citations: Times 15-Feb-1996 Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(3) Animals, Crime Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81009
Judges: Goose J Citations:  EWHC 2643 (Admin) Links: Bailii Statutes: Animal Welfare Act 2006, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Crime Updated: 01 April 2022; Ref: scu.598407
Appeal against sentence of being in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. Judges: Sir Anthony May P QBD, Foskett, Nicola Davies JJ Citations:  EWCA Crim 673,  2 Cr App Rep (S) 95 Links: Bailii Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Jurisdiction: England and Wales … Continue reading Regina v Harry: Cacd 2 Mar 2010
Pitchford LJ, Davies J, Collier QC J  EWCA Crim 2396 Bailii Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3 England and Wales Crime Updated: 28 November 2021; Ref: scu.519329
Appeal from order for destruction of a dog as dangerous. Silber J  EWCA Crim 204,  Cr App R (S) 70 Bailii Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 4(1A)(a) England and Wales Criminal Sentencing Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.270933
Police ‘lawful use’ of dog must be police work The prosecutor wished to appeal from the acquittal of a police officer, whose police dog, while being exercised, attacked a runner causing injury. The judge had accepted the defence, since the dog required exercise, the officer was using the dog for a lawful purpose with the … Continue reading PY, Regina v: CACD 22 Jan 2019
The defendant had seized a dog after a biting incident. They sought its destruction. The owner said that they were out of time. The court was asked whether the time ran from the biting incident or the seizure.
Held: The owner’s appeal failed. . .
The court heard an appeal from conviction of an offence under section 3.
Held: The court referred to Bezzina.
Popplewell J dissented from the approach in Bezzina, saying: ‘It seems to me that in order to impose some logic in this case the . .
The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
Kennedy LJ said: ‘Accordingly, we come to the conclusion . .
TS (aged 14) was riding his bicycle. A dog ran out and chased him into the path of a car. He suffered serious injury. The dog had known aggressive characteristics. His claim to CICA was rejected on the basis that no crime of violence was involved. . .
‘Type of Dog’ has a broader meaning than the phrase ‘Breed of Dog’. American breed standards include characteristic behaviour also. . .
The defendant appealed against his conviction. He had been tried at the Crown Court for being in charge of a dog which caused injury whilst dangerously out of control. In being found not guilty of that offence, he had been convicted of a lesser . .
The defendant had been sentenced to nine months imprisonment for the aggravated offence of failing to control her dogs.
Held: Parliament clearly intended that imprisonment should be available to the courts in approriate circumstances. The . .
The defendant appealed against her conviction for having her dog dangerously out of control in a public place. She said there had been insufficient evidence to justify the finding. The dog was said to had attacked and bitten another dog, and then . .
The appellant had faced trial at the Crown Court for the aggravated offence under section 3 of the 1991 Act, but had pleaded guilty to the lesser offence under section 4.
Held: The appeal was allowed. The section 4 offence was a summary only . .
The discontinuance of proceedings still left the fact of a prosecution to support a destruction order. . .
Challenge to dog destruction order. . .
The appellants challenged the interpretation of the 1991 Act, and of the 2015 Order, and in particular whether the power of a court under section 4B of the Act to make a contingent destruction order (‘CDO’) in relation to a dog prohibited under the . .
References:  EWCA Crim 673,  2 Cr App Rep (S) 95 Links: Bailii Coram: Sir Anthony May P QBD, Foskett, Nicola Davies JJ Appeal against sentence of being in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. Statutes: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a joke. The envelope had leaked causing a terrorist … Continue reading Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein: HL 21 Jul 2005