Neoclassic Perk Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 Welcome home Barry - it is totally wrong that you have suffered so much in the last 16 months Is there anyone who can clarify a couple of legal points if they know? Did the court return a guilty verdict because the defence did not prove that Barry had been stolen and so therefore, the defendant was the person legally in charge at the time of the incident...... - or - did they return the verdict despite the fact that Barry had been stolen and implying that the theft was the initial event in a sequence that led to the bite, and the defendant was responsible for Barry at the time he was stolen and therefore liable for the subsequent events ? If it is the latter, then this is a hugely significant ruling for all dog owners - and effectively re-interprets the DDA..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave the dog Posted March 24, 2009 Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 (edited) If it is the latter, then this is a hugely significant ruling for all dog owners - and effectively re-interprets the DDA. Not really. s.3 of the DDA states: Keeping dogs under proper control (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place— (a) the owner; and (b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. I doubt it was envisaged applying to a stolen dog, but the courts have to apply what is written unless there is case law which gives further guidance. Food for thought for everyone. Edited March 24, 2009 by dave the dog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 it is the first instance ish Barry was reported as stolen but at many police stations missing dogs go in the lost dogs book. so all that was logged was that he was missing not stolen. (this is something that has frustrated me for years) so for the purposes of prosecution the last person known to be in charge of the dogs was the carer who made the report, there was no log made with the dog warden because his carer was sure that there was no chance the dogs could have strayed as it was impossible for them to get free, and the incident happened and the dogs found within a couple of hours so it was just down whether the magistrates accepted this, being found guilty allowed the court to destroy or place a control order on Barry, an acquittal would have set him free without restriction. His owners could appeal the decision and feel there are good grounds to do so. But their only concern was Barrys welfare and bringing him home asap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted March 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted March 24, 2009 ^wot he said was what i was saying only his makes more sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts