Donnelly, R. v

For an aggravated dangerous-dog offence causing injury, sentence must reflect the seriousness of the consequences as well as the offender’s intention. The court must balance public safety against individual culpability.

A dog-keeping disqualification should protect the public but should not be longer than necessary or unnecessarily impede lawful activity. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, destruction is mandatory for an aggravated offence unless the court is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. That assessment concerns the dog’s actual condition and living circumstances, even where its propensity to bite may arise from the way it has been kept.

The applicant was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on 20 July 2007 after convictions and breaches arising from three incidents in which his German Shepherd, Zak, escaped and bit members of the public. The later incidents caused injury, and one conviction followed a contested trial.

The judge imposed consecutive terms totalling 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years with supervision, a ten-year disqualification from keeping a dog, and an order for Zak’s destruction. The applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence, challenging the custodial terms, the length of disqualification, and the destruction order.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court granted leave and reduced the custodial term from 12 months to 35 weeks’ imprisonment. The terms remained consecutive, suspended for two years, with the supervision requirement retained.

2. The aggravated form of the dangerous-dog offence was serious. Applying R v Cox [2004] EWCA Crim 282, the court treated the consequences of the attacks as at least as important as intention. Custody was therefore justified in principle. However, the nominal terms were longer than necessary. By sections 181 and 189 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the revised terms had to be expressed in weeks: 28 weeks and seven weeks respectively.

3. The ten-year dog-keeping disqualification was excessive. Public safety and the applicant’s history of controlling dogs remained important, but a disqualification should not be unnecessarily long or unnecessarily hinder lawful activity. The court reduced it to three years, running from the Crown Court order.

4. The destruction order was upheld. Section 4(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 required destruction for the aggravated offence unless section 1A was satisfied. The judge correctly assessed whether Zak, in his actual condition and living circumstances, would be a danger to public safety. Evidence that the dog’s biting behaviour resulted from its care rather than an inherent disposition did not establish that he would not be dangerous. The court also ordered reimbursement of the applicant’s £36 travel costs and made no further order for the costs of keeping Zak pending destruction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). Leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The custodial sentence and dog-keeping disqualification were reduced, but the destruction order was upheld.
• Crown Court at Minshull Street, Manchester. On 20 July 2007, Judge Khokhar imposed consecutive suspended custodial terms totalling 12 months, a ten-year disqualification from keeping a dog, and an order for the destruction of Zak.