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. CICA sought judicial review of the first tier tribunal’s decision against it, and the request was referred to the UTAA. It said that there had been no crime of violence.
Held: The request was refused.
Levenson UTJ said: ‘ Applying the law as explained above, the first question is whether an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a crime of violence for the purposes of the 2001 scheme. This is a question of law. I can see nothing in the legislation, the 2001 scheme or the case law that would prevent such an offence being classed as a crime of violence. The offence can only be committed if a dog is ‘dangerously out of control’ (my emphasis). Even the non-aggravated offence carries a possible sentence of six months imprisonment. The concept of the dog being dangerously out of control involves grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person (my emphasis). The fact that no mens rea (mental attitude that must be established before the offence can be proved to have been committed) is specified does not stop it being a crime of violence for the purposes of the scheme, notwithstanding Mr Johnson’s assertions to the contrary . . I accept that the reasons given by the panel in the present case could have been more detailed and extensive but I reject Mr Johnson’s caricature of the decision as being that ‘an unidentified offender had committed some unspecified crime of violence’. In my view the First-tier Tribunal did enough to establish that the dog’s owner had committed a crime of violence under the 1971 Act. It referred to the history of the dog being aggressive if it got loose from the back yard and it explicitly accepted evidence which (although the panel did not spell it out) established that the offence had been committed.’
Judges:
Levenson UTJ
Citations:
[2012] UKUT 444 (AAC)
Links:
Statutes:
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Criminal Injuries Compensation Board ex parte Webb CA 1987
Interpretation of CICB Scheme
The court should not construe the scheme as if it were a statute but as a public announcement of what the Government was willing to do. This entails the court deciding what would be a reasonable and literate man’s understanding of the circumstances . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal (Social Entitlement Chamber) CA 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had been driving his lorry. A man jumped in front of a second lorry in an apparent attempt to commit suicide. In a failed attempt to avoid the suicide, the second lorry crashed into the claimant causing catastrophic injuries. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 12 November 2022; Ref: scu.468806