Dangerous Dogs, Postal Workers and the “Householder” Defence
| DOI | 10.1177/00220183221097326 |
| Published date | 01 April 2022 |
| Date | 01 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Dangerous Dogs, Postal Workers
and the “Householder”Defence
Royal Mail Group Ltd v Watson [2021] EWHC 2098
(Admin)
Keywords
Dangerous dog, implied licence, bitten finger, strict liability, “Householder”defence
A Royal Mail postal worker had been delivering mail to the home address of the respondent when one of
his fingers was bitten by the respondent’s Boxer-type dog. The bite occurred as the worker pushed the
mail through the letter box with his hand, rather than using a postal stick (or postal peg) which had
been provided by his employer. In respect of the incident, the respondent was the subject of a private
prosecution brought by the Royal Mail for an aggravated offence contrary to s.3 of the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991. At his trial, he was acquitted by a District Judge sitting at Ipswich Magistrates’
Court. In the present proceedings brought pursuant to s.111 of the Magistrates’Court Act 1980, the pros-
ecution appealed against the respondent’s acquittal.
Three questions were framed by the District Judge for the opinion of the Divisional Court: (i) in cir-
cumstances where a postal worker fails to use a postal stick and in consequence places their fingers into a
property, does this amount to trespass?; (ii) in these circumstances, had the District Judge been correct to
apply the “Householder”defence as set out in s.3(1A) and s.3(1B) of the 1991 Act, as amended?; and (iii)
in the event that the answers to questions (i) and (ii) were “No”, was the District Judge correct in finding
that the postal worker needed to have used “due diligence”in establishing if a dog is present in the house
before inserting their fingers through the letter box, or is it an offence of strict liability?
Held, allowing the appeal, it was clear on the basis of the authorities that liability for the simple and
aggravated offences under s.3 of the 1991 Act was strict. In order to be guilty of a s.3 offence, therefore,
there must be an act or omission of the defendant (with or without fault) that to some (more than minimal)
degree caused or permitted the prohibited state of affairs to occur. Even if the postal worker’s actions
could be said to have contributed to his finger being bitten, the acts or omissions of the respondent, in
the sense of allowing his dog to be in the house unfettered and with access to the letter box, caused or
permitted the prohibited state of affairs to occur. Given that there were sound public policy reasons
for the strict liability nature of the s.3 offence, it would be wrong to effectively re-write the statute by
recognising a lack of due diligence defence. On the facts, the “Householder”defence had been unavail-
able since the postal worker had not exceeded the scope of an implied licence to be on the property.
Commentary
Introduction
The present case has received some coverage in the print and online media (see, for example, ‘Royal Mail
wins appeal over Ipswich postman dog bite’at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-
Case Note
The Journal of Criminal Law
2022, Vol. 86(2) 134–137
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00220183221097326
journals.sagepub.com/home/clj
To continue reading
Request your trial