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 appropriate defence under section 10(3) of the 1991 Act to a charge of allowing it to be dangerously out of control. The defendant objected that the prosecutor had used email to notify his acquittal agreement to the court.
Held: The appeal succeeded.
The email notification was effective: ‘Section 58(4) requires the prosecution to inform the court that it intends to appeal (or request an adjournment and subsequently inform the court following the adjournment); and section 58(8) requires the prosecution at the same time or before it informs the court that it intends to appeal, also to inform the court of its acquittal agreement. Those two subsections contemplate the court potentially being informed of something at three different times: (a) following the ruling, of the intention to appeal; (b) following the adjournment, of the intention to appeal; and (c) at the same time or before either of those events, of the acquittal undertaking. Additionally, subsection (4) contemplates that the prosecution might make a request for an adjournment to consider whether to appeal . . Section 58 of the 2003 Act does not explicitly specify any mechanism for informing the court (or requesting an adjournment). Does it implicitly require each of the steps we have identified to be taken orally in court? . . Our conclusion is that it does not.’
‘The material words of section 10(3), namely ‘do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown’ imports four concepts. First, of the dog whose behaviour is under scrutiny; secondly, whether that dog was being used at the time; thirdly, whether that use was for a lawful purpose; and fourthly, whether that use was by a police constable (or other Crown servant). The broad context in which these concepts fall to be interpreted is the statutory purpose of section 3 of the 1991 Act. That is to provide protection to the public from dogs which are dangerously out of control. The provision is one of strict liability. Criminal liability does not depend upon proof of any fault, negligence or even an ability to avoid the statutory harm. For that reason, although the respondent emphasises that the dog, who was exercised regularly off the lead, had never behaved in this way before and always previously responded to commands, those circumstances provide no defence.
The interpretation of the exemption should not undermine the statutory purpose by giving it an extravagant meaning.’
Lord Burnett of Maldon CJ,Cheema-Grubb, Goose JJ
[2019] EWCA Crim 17, [2019] WLR(D) 38
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Justice Act 2003 58(8), Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3, Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 38
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – LSA, Regina v CACD 16-May-2008
(Courts-Martial Appeals Court) The defendant had faced road traffic offence charges, but the court had discharged the case using the Forest of Dean case. The prosecutor sought to appeal but failed to give the undertaking with regard to taking no . .
Cited – NT, Regina v CACD 31-Mar-2010
The prosecutor appealed against a stay of the prosecution as an abuse. The prosecution had failed give the undertaking necessary on lodging the appeal to the court against whose ruling it wanted to appeal, that it agreed that the defendant should be . .
Cited – Regina v F CACD 14-Mar-2013
The crown sought leave to appeal against a terminating ruling. The defendant was accused of rape and sexual assault against his sister, profoundly deaf and with learning difficulties. The judge had found the victim to not be competent to give . .
Cited – The Knightland Foundation, Regina v CACD 26-Jul-2018
The court considered the practice on the giving of the acquittal undertaking. Hallett LJ said that it would be best practice to give the information in open court because: (a) that enables the judge to keep control over the proceedings, including . .
Cited – Merseyside Police Authority v Police Medical Appeal Board and others Admn 23-Jan-2009
Two police officers had been granted additional retirement annuities on the basis that they had been injured in the execution of their duty. The chief constable denied this. A police officer who was on annual leave was injured whilst exercising the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice, Animals, Police
Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.633287
