Shufflebottom, R (on the application of) v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

A magistrates’ court has jurisdiction under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 where the dog’s owner is amenable to its jurisdiction and ordinarily keeps the dog within the commission area. That jurisdiction is not removed merely because the incident demonstrating the dog’s dangerousness occurred outside the area, including outside England and Wales. The statutory scheme is preventive. The court may consider past dangerous or uncontrolled behaviour wherever it occurred when deciding whether the owner should be ordered to keep the dog under proper control or destroy it.

This was an appeal by way of case stated from justices sitting in the Petty Sessional Division of Stockport. The claimant owned a dog ordinarily kept at his home within the commission area. While the claimant was on holiday in Scotland, the dog seriously injured a person.

The complaint sought an order under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871. The justices held that they had jurisdiction because the owner and the dog were ordinarily connected with their area, despite the supporting incident occurring in Scotland. The issue was whether section 52 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 supplied jurisdiction in those circumstances.

1. The appeal was dismissed in substance. The case stated was answered affirmatively. The justices had jurisdiction to hear the complaint under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
2. Section 2 is not criminal in character. It provides a form of preventive jurisdiction directed to the owner, who may be ordered either to keep the dog under proper control or to destroy it. The relevant question is whether the dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control on the occasion complained of. Past dangerous or uncontrolled behaviour may support an inference that the dog remains dangerous when the complaint is made.
3. The mischief addressed by the section is the risk posed by dangerous dogs owned by persons within the court’s jurisdiction. The statutory purpose would be undermined if jurisdiction could be avoided because the dog was temporarily taken or sent outside the area.
4. Section 52 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 confers jurisdiction where a complaint relates to something left undone that ought to have been done in the commission area or to a matter arising there. The relevant matter was whether an owner within the area, whose dog had exhibited dangerous and uncontrolled behaviour, should be made subject to an order under section 2.
5. The fact that the supporting evidence arose from an incident in Scotland, outside the jurisdiction of any English court, did not prevent the complaint from being heard. The claimant’s ordinary keeping of the dog within the commission area and his amenability to the justices’ jurisdiction were sufficient. The respondent’s costs were payable by the claimant and were summarily assessed at £2,644.05.

• High Court (Administrative Court): the appeal by way of case stated was determined by Mr Justice Mackay. The justices’ view that they had jurisdiction was upheld, and the respondent’s costs were assessed at £2,644.05.