R v Montgomery and Others
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Date | 01 January 1966 |
| Court | Court of Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
Police dog handler's account of tracking - Whether admissible -Whether corroboration of tracker dog evidence required.
The evidence of a police dog handler describing the behaviour of a tracker dog when set to follow a scent from the scene of a crime is admissible evidence notwithstanding that the dog did not lead the police to the accused or to anything which can be shown to have been in his possession, and there is no rule either of law or of practice which would require a trial judge to warn a jury that it would be dangerous to convict an accused upon tracker dog evidence which is not corroborated. A police constable saw three men stealing wire from a telegraph pole, but before he could approach close enough to be able to identify them they made off across some fields and he lost sight of them. About an hour and a half later, a police dog picked up a scent and went off in the same direction as the escaping men had gone. The dog followed the scent for some time and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R v Adomako
...from evidentiary material which had not to pass the acid test of cross-examination. Consideration was given also to R v MontgomeryDNI ((1966) NI 120) and Roberts v State of Maryland ((1983) 469 Atlan Rep (2d) 442). In the present case the judge had held that, provided the proper foundation ......
-
S v Shabalala
...3rd ed vol 1 para 177.) It has also been admitted in Scotland (Patterson v Nixon 1960 SC (J) F 42), Northern Ireland (R v Montgomery 1966 NI 120 which is criticised by F H Newark "What the Dog Said" vol 82 LQR 311 at 312) and by the New Zealand Appeal Court (R v Lindsay 1970 NZLR 1002), the......
-
S v Shabalala
...3rd ed vol 1 para 177.) It has also been admitted in Scotland (Patterson v Nixon 1960 SC (J) F 42), Northern Ireland (R v Montgomery 1966 NI 120 which is criticised by F H Newark "What the Dog Said" vol 82 LQR 311 at 312) and by the New Zealand Appeal Court (R v Lindsay 1970 NZLR 1002), the......