(Court of Appeal of British Columbia) The court considered the admissibility of evidence derived from a tracker dog: ‘Once the qualifications of a tracking dog to follow a scent and that of his trainer to handle the dog have been established (in the instant case it was admitted at trial that both the dog and its handler were as good as they could be) evidence of tracking the accused by scent from the scene of a crime by such a dog is admissible on the trial of the accused and the only question concerns the weight to be given to such evidence.’
Citations:
(1962) 35 DLR 172
Jurisdiction:
Canada
Citing:
Not Followed – Rex v Trupedo 1920
(South Africa) Evidence concerning the activity of a tracker dog was not admissible. Innes CJ said: ‘We have no scientific or accurate knowledge as to the faculty by which dogs of certain breeds are said to be able to follow the scent of one human . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Pieterson; Regina v H CACD 8-Nov-1994
The defendants appealed against their convictions for robbery. A dog had been used to follow scents from the scene, picking up items taken in the raid. The defendants objected to admission of evidence of the dog’s activities and reliability.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.452351
