Dangerous Dogs in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Bezzina ; R v Codling ; R v Elvin
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 02 December 1993

    In other words, when one encounters the words in Section 3 (1) —"dangerously out of control" —one applies the meaning which is set out in Section 10 (3) and that means, in effect, that if a dog is in a public place, if the person who was accused is shown to be the owner of the dog, if the dog is dangerously out of control in the sense that the dog is shown to be acting in a way that gives grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure anyone, liability follows.

  • R v Flack (Michael James)
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 25 January 2008

    (3) The court should ordinarily consider, before ordering immediate destruction, whether to exercise the power under section 4a(4) of the 1991 Act to order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed (“a suspended order of destruction”).

    (5) A court should not order destruction if satisfied that the imposition of such a condition would mean the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

    (6) 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.

  • Gill Henderson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 28 March 2018

    Where such a dog has been seized, then the court must make a destruction order unless it is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety – see s.4B(2)(a). In these circumstances, s.4B(2A) requires the court to consider particular matters in deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety. The matters which the court must consider are set out at s.4B(2A)(a). In addition, the court may consider any other relevant circumstances – see s.4B(2A)(b).

  • Curtis v Betts
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 23 November 1989

    The mere fact that a particular animal shared its potentially dangerous characteristics with other animals of the same species will not preclude the satisfaction of requirement (b) if on the particular facts the likelihood of damage was attributable to characteristics normally found in animals of the same species at times or in circumstances corresponding with those in which the damage actually occurred.

  • R v Mose Baballa
    • Court of Appeal (Criminal Division)
    • 28 May 2010

    As we have observed, Flack was concerned with section 3(1) of the 1991 Act. Nevertheless, we consider that the same principles are applicable to a case which falls within section 1(3) of the 1991 Act.

See all results
Legislation
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results
Forms
See all results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT