On 20 September 2009, in a private car park, Letty's guide dog Jerry bit Michael. Having watched the scene, Mrs. Brown pelted the dog with stones which in turn attacked her. Ben then chased the dog with the aim of attaching it by its lead but the dog ran into a private building and bit him when he reached down to attach the dog. Finally, the dog came back to Letty. The dog was killed and Letty Sharp was fined £150. The appellant was convicted under Sections 3(1) and (3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 of the aggravated offence of letting a dog get dangerously out of control in a public place. The question in this appeal is whether the facts fall within the scope of Sections 3(1) and (3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Four issues need to be raised, was the dog 'dangerously out of control' as required by section 3(1)? Can a car park be considered as a 'public place'? Does the word 'allows' within the sentence 'if the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be' as set forth in Section 3(1) refer to a positive action? Does the act of taking the lead in order to catch the dog change the fact of who is in charge of the dog?
[...] Moreover, in R v Bogdal [2008], according to Section the judges ruled that a private place by nature (such as a garden) can be a public place only if there is an access to the public or if there is an invitation of the owner. Visitors are not considered as the public. The same solution applies in DPP v Fellowes [1993], where a path leading to a front door was not a public place as required by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. [...]
[...] Cour d'appel, section criminelle janvier 2009 - Regina contre Sharp Lord Justice Trench: On 20 September 2009, in a private car park, Letty's guide dog Jerry bit Michael after being rushed and grabbed by an ear. Having watched the scene, Mrs. Brown pelted the dog with stones which in turn attacked her. Ben then chased the dog with the aim of attaching it by its lead but the dog ran into a private building and bit him when he reached down to attach the dog. [...]
[...] Statute; Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; 31-35. Archbold from Sweet and Maxwell, Westlaw. [...]
[...] If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there- it injures any person; or there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.” “Dangerously out of control” First, Section provides that the offence is committed when a dog is “dangerously out of control”. Letty argues that her guide dog had never been aggressive before and that the attacks were only a form of self defence. So the meaning of the expression “dangerously out of control” has to be clarified. Letty cites the case R. v Flack [2008] in which a dog bit a woman in a park. [...]
[...] A warning is not mentioned here. This case also applies the solution of R. v Benzina [1994] in which the “grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would cause an injury to any person” were clear when a dog bit someone, even if it had never shown such behaviour before. In this case, Jerry attacked three people and did not reply to Letty's calls for a long time. Moreover, Jerry chased Mrs Brown after having bitten the boy. The facts previously mentioned are clearly similar to our case. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
