R v Flack (Michael James)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE HOOPER,Mr Justice Silber,MR JUSTICE SILBER |
| Judgment Date | 25 January 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Crim 204 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) |
| Docket Number | No. 2007/05095/A8 |
| Date | 25 January 2008 |
[2008] EWCA Crim 204
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
The Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Hooper
Mr Justice Silber and
Mr Justice Underhill
No. 2007/05095/A8
Mr S V Evans appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Friday 25 January 2008
I will ask Mr Justice Silber to give the judgment of the court.
On 20 August 2007, in the Crown Court at Chester, before Mr Recorder Killeen, the appellant, Michael James Flack, pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to a count of being the owner of a dog called ' Star' which had caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. He also pleaded guilty to an offence of being in charge of a dog called 'Snoop' while dangerously out of control in a public place. On 21 August 2007, a destruction order was made in respect of the dog Star and a contingent destruction order was made in respect of the dog Snoop. The measures specified in relation to Snoop were that he should be muzzled in public places at all times, he should wear a special collar to keep him under control and be kept on a lead at all times in public.
The appeal is against the order for destruction of Star. It is brought with the leave of the single judge.
The facts which give rise to this conviction are these. During the afternoon of 18 June 2006 a Mr and Mrs Stalker were walking through Ridgway Park in Lymm with their three grandchildren. At the entrance to the park they noticed that there were two dogs running towards them. Mr Stalker thought that the dogs were behaving aggressively and he told his wife to take care. Unfortunately, before she could take evasive action, the dogs attacked her lower left leg. The smaller of the two dogs bit her leg, ripping her trousers and causing a severe wound which bled profusely. She cried out in pain. Mr Stalker shouted at the dogs and they ran off.
An ambulance was called. On admission to hospital the wounds suffered by Mrs Stalker were sutured.
On 23 June 2006, the appellant's wife went to the Stalkers' home and accepted that the offending dogs belonged to her. On 27 June 2006, Mr Stalker went to the home of the appellant and his wife. He identified Star as the dog responsible for biting his wife.
The basis upon which the appellant pleaded guilty was that an unknown third party had opened the gate behind which the dogs were secured, thereby allowing them to escape.
Evidence was called before the Recorder from Dr Candy d'Sa, an Animal Behaviour Consultant, who explained that she had carried out an assessment of the dogs Star and Snoop over a period of two hours. She concluded that they were both sociable to people, very friendly and very playful with each other. It was her view that there was no reason to fear them or to worry about their temperament in any way. The evidence of Dr d'Sa was that the behaviour of the dogs at the time of the incident may have been consistent with heavy play which may seem aggressive. In her report Dr d'Sa said that Star was a neutered bitch Rottweiler crossed with a German Shepherd dog. She was used as a therapy dog to visit the elderly in care homes. This had required rigorous training so far as her temperament was concerned. Dr d'Sa considered that Star and Snoop were friendly and interactive and that they responded to commands. The dogs displayed no signs of aggression. They were two of the most passive and friendly dogs which had been encountered by Dr d'Sa. She considered that the cause of the attack might possibly have been that the dogs had been anxious on escaping from their garden and that they had reacted with fear to unfamiliar stimuli. Her view was that their aggression would most likely show itself in a single reflexive bite rather than the attack described. She described the dogs as being calm in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R Grant v Crown Court at Sheffield
...for the Claimant today, but did not appear before the Crown Court, has drawn my attention to the judgments of the Court of Appeal in R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204 and R v Baballa [2010] EWCA Crim 1950. She contends that those cases support an opposite conclusion to the one stated at paragr......
-
R Hooker v Ipswich Crown Court
...be taken by a court in considering the imposition of a destruction order following a conviction under S.3(1) of the 1991 Act. The case is R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204. The principles can be set out as follows: (a) The court has a power under S.4(1) of the 1991 Act to order the destruction......
-
R v Rogers; R v Tapecrown Ltd; R v Beaman
...relevant circumstances." 29 It is clear that the judge must consider both the temperament of the dog and the capability of the owner. In R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204, [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 70, this court summarised at paragraph 11 relevant considerations applicable. The decision of the ju......
-
R v Navdeep Singh
...if it is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. 17 This court considered the provisions of section 4 in R v Flack [2008] 2 Cr App R (S) 70. Giving the judgment of the court in that case Silber J said at paragraph 11 that: "In deciding what order to make, the ......
-
Court of Appeal
...behaviour andthe owner’s history of controlling the dog concerned in order to determinewhat order should be made. (R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204 at [11])In light of this omission the immediate destruction order could notstand. As to the possibility of the incident being viewed as a joint a......