Owner of dangerous dog which attacked neighbour loses appeal against conviction

Pauline Reid claimed that there was “insufficient corroborated evidence” that there were grounds for “a reasonable apprehension” that the dog would injure a person, but the Criminal Appeal Court ruled that the sheriff was entitled to conclude that there was “sufficient evidence”.

Lady Paton, Lord Bracadale and Sheriff Principal Stephen QC heard that on 9 February 2015 after trial at Perth Sheriff Court, the appellant was convicted on summary complaint of a contravention of section 3(1) of theDangerous Dogs Act 1991 in that on 16 June 2014, her was dangerously out of control and bit her next door neighbour Margaret Anne McLeod on the body to her injury.

The sheriff made a community payback order with a requirement of 150 hours of unpaid work and ordered the destruction of the dog, as well as disqualifying the appellant from having custody of a dog for a period of three years.

But the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing that the sheriff erred in law in repelling a “no case to answer” submission and that the findings in fact did not support the conclusion that there were grounds to fear that the dog might attack someone.

In repelling the submission, the sheriff took account of the evidence from the complainer and from the appellant’s mother Sheila Milne that the dog was “a large, strong dog”, as well as the evidence of the complainer as to the behaviour of the dog on previous occasions and that she had previously warned the appellant that the dog was “dangerous”.

The complainer had said she was “terrified” of the dog and that she would not go into her garden if the dog was in the appellant’s garden because it would come to the fence and “snarl” at her.

The sheriff also took into account the evidence from the complainer, which was supported by the evidence of Mrs Milne, that the dog had escaped from his own garden before carrying out the attack, and the evidence from the complainer and PC Martin Buchan that the attack was a “sustained one which had lasted for a number of minutes and had involved “dragging the complainer for a distance”.

However, on behalf of the appellant it was submitted that there was “insufficient corroboration” of the evidence of the complainer to allow the inference to be drawn that there were grounds for “a reasonable apprehension” that the dog would injure any person.

It was said that the evidence as to the previous behaviour of the dog and any warning given to the appellant came only from the complainer.

As to the nature of the attack itself, there was a “single incident of attack with no appreciable time interval”, therefore there was no stage at which there were grounds for a reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure any person.

Proof of the fact that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure some person was “essential” and “required corroboration”, it was submitted.

Refusing the appeal, the judges stated that at the stage of no case to answer the sheriff was entitled to take the Crown case “at its highest”.

Delivering the opinion of the court, Lord Bracadale said: “While we accept that the attack was a single incident and that the evidence indicated that the appellant was able to get the dog under control, we consider that there was sufficient evidence pointing to knowledge on the part of the appellant beforehand as to the potential behaviour of the dog.

“There was evidence from the complainer and Mrs Milne as to the size, strength and breed of the dog. The complainer had previously warned the appellant that the dog was dangerous.

“It seems to us that having regard to the evidence of the complainer, together with the surrounding circumstantial evidence, the sheriff was entitled to conclude that there was sufficient evidence prima facie satisfying the objective test set by the 1991 Act.

“In our opinion she was entitled to repel the submission of no case to answer.”

It was further argued that based on the findings in fact which the sheriff had made, there was insufficient evidence to found her conclusion that there were grounds for a reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure any person, but the judges disagreed.

Lord Bracadale said: “It seems to us that in light of these findings in fact the sheriff was entitled to make finding in fact 29 that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure someone if it were to escape from the appellant’s garden. She was entitled to go on to convict the appellant of the charge.”

The appeal against sentence was continued to a later date.