Recent Judicial Decisions
| DOI | 10.1177/0032258X6103400314 |
| Published date | 01 May 1961 |
| Date | 01 May 1961 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Recent
Judicial
Decisions
POLICE COMPLAINANTS
AND
THE
DOGS ACT
Smith v. Baker
PROCEEDINGS
BY
WAY
of complaint under the Dogs Act are not
criminal proceedings; it is not until there is a failure to comply
with a court order to control a dog that the matter becomes a
matter for a criminal information. This was made clear in the case
of R. v. Nottingham Justices, Ex parte Brown [1960] 3 All E.R.
625, which was noted in the last issue of this
JOURNAL.
In Smith v.
Baker
[1960]
3 All E.R. 653, it was argued that in the ordinary
way a complaint should be initiated by the party aggrieved and not
by a police officer. The dog in question jumped at and attacked a
boy and bit him above his ear and the owner of the dog contended
that the proper person to lay the complaint was the boy who was
bitten and not a police officer. The boy did not authorize the latter
to make the complaint. The Divisional Court rejected this conten-
tion, holding that the complaint was properly made by the police
officerinvestigating the case.
"
Complaint"
in the Dogs Act is unqualified as to who the
complainant shall be.
It
does not
say"
by a person aggrieved".
It
is intended to be absolutely at large, said the Court.
"Further",
observed the Lord Chief Justice, .. one realizes the complete absur-
dity of the argument when one finds that under the original statute
it is the police who are really charged in the public interest with the
duty of taking possession, amongst other things, of dogs that they
find to be savage and dangerous. To take an illustration, supposing
a police officer in the exercise of his powers under s. 1 (since repealed)
of the Act were to take into custody a stray dog that was highly
dangerous and, after two or three days, the owner came and tendered
his money for his keep and took him away, the police officer could
do nothing but would have to wait till somebody was bitten by the
dog or aggrieved by the dog before a complaint could be laid. The
truth of the matter is, that the police in the majority of cases are the
proper people to lay the complaint.
It
is a complaint brought in
the public interest and for the protection of the public, and in coming
to that conclusion I am happy to find that it is in accordance with
the view taken in Scotland".
It
appears from the Scottish case of
Walker v. Brander (1920) S.C. (J.) 20, that in Scotland the proper
person to lay such a complaint is the Procurator-Fiscal.
May-June
1961
221
To continue reading
Request your trial