Shufflebottom v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester: Admn 7 Feb 2003

The magistrates were asked to make a finding against a dog which was kept within their jurisdiction, but where the incident upon which the application was based, had occurred in Scotland. The appellant contended it should have been heard in Scotland because of section 52 of the 1980 Act.
Held: The 1871 Act conferred a civil jurisdiction, and was related to its care. The section was intended to encourage dangerous dogs to be restrained properly. The case fell within the second or third categories of section 52, and the magistrates had jurisdiction.
Mackay J
Times 13-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 246 (Admin)
Dogs Act 1871 2, Magistrates Courts Act 1980 52
England and Wales

Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.179123