(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 being, rejecting the scent of all others . . there is too much uncertainty as to the constancy of his behaviour and as to the extent of the factor of error involved to justify us in drawing legal inferences therefrom.’
Judges:
Innes CJ
Citations:
(1920) App Div 58
Cited by:
Cited – Rex v White 1926
(British Colombia) Evidence regarding a tracker dog was held inadmissible. . .
Not Followed – 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 . .
Not Followed – 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.
Commonwealth, Criminal Evidence
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.452350