Woman Found Not Guilty Of Owning A Dog That Caused Injury Whilst Dangerously Out Of Control In Public Place Harrow Crown Court 2024
Our client was accused of owning a dog that caused injury whilst dangerously out of control in a public place. The Defendant ran a ski shop where she offered work experience to school children nearby. The shop had been vetted by the school and deemed pet friendly. The defendant’s pet dog, a collie, often slept in his bed at the back of the shop. The dog was often engaged with by school children and had always been of a friendly nature. On one occasion the dog was asleep in his bed and one of the school children went to cuddle the dog. The dog, due to being asleep, was startled by this and reacted by giving a warning bite. This defensive act resulted in a laceration to the pupil’s lip and a subsequent hospital visit was required.
Owning a dog that caused injury whilst dangerously out of control in a public place is an offence contrary to section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991. A public place can include a private property that members of the public have access to and the owner or person in charge of the dog is liable for this offence. This is a summary offence and therefore carries a maximum sentence of six months imprisonment. The onus is on the prosecution to prove that the defendant, by an act or omission, with or without fault, to more than a minimal degree, caused or permitted a dog to be dangerously out of control. This is an offence of strict liability and therefore there is no requirement to prove intention or recklessness. This offence becomes aggravated if the dog subsequently causes injury to another person. In this instance the dog caused a laceration to the complainant’s lip, rendering this offence aggravated. The offence being aggravated therefore renders it an either-way offence and subsequently it can be heard in the Crown court.
Section 10(3) of the DDA 1991 defines dangerously out of control as occurring where there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will cause injury. In this case, the defence argued that the dog posed no grounds for reasonable apprehension, as he had always been good natured around children and had been asleep prior to the incident. Therefore the dog showed no signs of aggression or being dangerously out of control, and clearly acted in retaliation following a third party act, namely cuddling a sleeping dog.
The defence put forward an expert report assessing the dog’s temperament who determined that the dog was not violent. Further, the defence submitted that the matter be reviewed in entirety, due to the clear lack of evidence supporting the case. On the first day of trial the judge, in light of our preparation, representations and legal arguments, put the question to the prosecutor, asking for confirmation that there was sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction by a jury. The prosecution proceeded to offer no evidence and subsequently a not guilty verdict was recorded.