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.
Held: Leave refused: ‘On either the interpretation propounded in Rafiq or that of Kennedy LJ in Bezzina, this dog was dangerously out of control. We are inclined to go further. In any event the definitions section, section 10, is not exclusive. It does not read as a matter of construction, ‘For the purposes of this Act, a dog shall only be regarded as dangerously out of control ….’ and then proceed to the definition. Therefore we feel ourselves entitled to go back to the straightforward words of section 3: ‘If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place ….’ In our judgment, this dog was dangerously out of control in a public place. That was amply evidenced by the way it behaved and the fact that it was not controlled by its handler.’
Judges:
Keene LJ, Hall HHJ
Citations:
[2008] EWCA Crim 814, (2008) 172 JP 413
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bezzina, Regina v Codling, Regina v Elvin CACD 7-Dec-1993
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 . .
Cited – Rafiq v Director of Public Prosecutions QBD 1997
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime, Animals
Updated: 09 December 2022; Ref: scu.270589
