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.
Held: The appeal failed. Evidence discovered after a trace by a dog might be allowed in, subject to stringent conditions, and evidence as to the dog’s training. Though the supporting evidence here had not met that standard, the deficiency was peripheral. The item found was found within a short distance from the scene of the crime, and had been identified by the victim.
‘In our judgment, if a dog handler can establish that a dog has been properly trained and that over a period of time the dog’s reactions indicate that it is a reliable pointer to the existence of a scent from a particular individual, then that evidence should properly be admitted.
However, it is important to emphasise two safeguards. First, the proper foundation must be laid by detailed evidence establishing the reliability of the dog in question. Secondly, the learned judge must, in giving his directions to the jury, alert them to the care that they need to take and to look with circumspection at the evidence of tracker dogs, having regard to the fact that the dog may not always be reliable and cannot be cross-examined.’
Judges:
LCJ
Citations:
Gazette 11-Jan-1995, Times 11-Nov-1994, [1995] 2 Cr App R 11, 93/6570/Z3, [1994] EWCA Crim 5
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Rex v Gibbins and Proctor CCA 1918
Wretched parents were accused of murder after their children starved to death. The court was asked whether they should be tried together: ‘The rule is, that it is a matter for the discretion of the judge at the trial whether two people jointly . .
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 – Regina v Haas 1962
(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 . .
Cited – Rex v White 1926
(British Colombia) Evidence regarding a tracker dog was held inadmissible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Evidence
Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.87547
