BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions >> Davies, R v [2010] EWCA Crim 1923 (04 August 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/1923.html Cite as: [2010] EWCA Crim 1923, (2010) 174 JP 514 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM the Crown Court at Harrow
Mrs Recorder Bickford-Smith QC
T20090143-1
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
The Honourable Mr Justice Mackay
and
The Honourable Mr Justice Davis
____________________
R |
Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
Grant David Robert Davies |
Appellant |
____________________
Mr Alistair Polson Appeared for the Appellant
Hearing date: 29 June 2010
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
The Honourable Mr Justice Mackay:
Section 3: Keeping dogs under proper control(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place –
a) The owner … is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence under this subsection.Section 10: … Interpretation … …
(3) For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on an occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so…
Section 4: Destruction and Disqualification Orders
(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under Section …3(1) above… the court –
a) may order the destruction of any dog in respect of which the offence was committed and, subject to Section (1A) below, shall do so in the case of … an aggravated offence under Section 3(1)…(1A) Nothing in subsection (1) (a) above shall require the court to order the destruction of a dog if the court is satisfied –
a) That the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety;…Section 4A: Contingent destruction orders…
(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3(1)… above the court may order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed.
(5) An order under sub section (4) above –
a) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; andb) If it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered, may require it to be neutered.Issue 1 – Was the Alsatian the "dog in respect of which the offence was committed" within the meaning of Section 4(1), and therefore the dog referred to in the Particulars of Offence in the indictment?
Issue 2 – Was the Recorder right to make an order for immediate destruction?
" iii) The court should ordinarily consider, before ordering immediate destruction, whether to exercise the power under section 4(A)(4) of the 1991 Act to order that unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control the dog shall be destroyed…
iv) A suspended order of destruction under that provision may specify the measures to be taken by the owner for keeping the dog under control whether by muzzling, keeping it on a lead, or excluding it from a specified place or otherwise…
v) A court should not order destruction if satisfied that the imposition of such a condition would mean that the dog did not constitute a danger to public safety.
vi) In deciding what order to make the court must consider all the relevant circumstances which include the dog's history of aggressive behaviour and the owner's history of controlling the dog concerned in order to determine what order should be made."
"I don't think it's necessary for me to say this, but I am quite sure it follows, and I say for the sake of clarity that it seems to me plain, that this dog is a danger to public safety".