Taffurelli & Ors, R (on the application of) v DPP

For the purposes of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, a deliberate failure to control dogs may amount to conduct forming part of a course of conduct amounting to harassment. Total control over an animal’s behaviour is unnecessary. The critical question is whether the owner deliberately failed to control the animal and thereby knowingly contributed to a campaign of harassment. Where established findings show that such conduct occurred on repeated occasions, it may be combined with other acts, including criminal damage, to satisfy the requirement for a course of conduct. A case stated appeal determines questions of law against established facts and is not the proper procedure for challenging factual findings.

Gino and Lee Taffurelli appealed by way of case stated against their convictions at Kingston upon Thames Magistrates’ Court for harassment contrary to section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The harassment was said to comprise a joint incident on 3 May 2003 and repeated excessive barking by dogs during June 2003. Gino was also convicted of criminal damage to a car, and Lee of criminal damage to a window.

The magistrates found that each appellant deliberately failed to control dogs in the early hours of the morning after complaints, and that the barking formed part of the harassment. The central issue was whether that failure could constitute conduct for the purposes of the Act, and whether the case stated procedure permitted the appellants to challenge the factual basis of the convictions.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The court was entitled, on the facts found by the Deputy District Judge, to convict both appellants of harassment.

2. A case stated appeal is confined to questions of law against established facts. The court was bound to accept the findings set out in the case stated and addendum. It could not investigate whether the evidence supported those findings, particularly where no transcript or note of the seven-day trial was available. Rules 76(2), 82(2) and 82(3) of the Magistrates’ Court Rules 1981 illustrated the procedural requirements that would have applied if a factual challenge had been intended.

3. Section 1(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 does not require an owner to exercise total control over a dog’s barking. A deliberate omission may constitute conduct in an appropriate case. The Deputy District Judge had found that the appellants deliberately failed to control their dogs after repeated complaints, and that the barking was loud, lengthy and occurred during the night. Those findings were capable of establishing conduct forming part of a campaign to harass.

4. The deliberate failure to control the dogs, together with the separate acts of criminal damage, supplied the repeated occasions necessary for a course of conduct. In the light of the findings of fact, there was no legal basis for challenging the convictions. The court added that an appeal to the Crown Court, rather than case stated, would have been the appropriate route for a rehearing and factual investigation.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeals by way of case stated dismissed. The court upheld the convictions entered by Kingston upon Thames Magistrates’ Court.

2. Kingston upon Thames Magistrates’ Court: following a seven-day trial, Gino and Lee Taffurelli were convicted of harassment under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Gino was also convicted of criminal damage to a car and Lee of criminal damage to a window.