North Wales Police v Anglesey Justices & Anor

Proceedings under Dogs Act 1871, section 2, are civil proceedings initiated by a complaint, not criminal proceedings initiated by an information. The court must examine the substance of the document lodged, rather than apply technical rigidity to an imperfect form. A summons does not found the magistrates’ civil jurisdiction; it merely secures the defendant’s attendance after a valid complaint has been made. Defects in a summons may be cured by appearance, and objections to its form are also subject to the statutory limitation in section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. Judicial review is appropriate where the issue is whether the magistrates were properly seised of the complaint.

A police officer sought an order concerning dangerous dogs under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871. Proceedings were initiated using a police summons form commonly used for criminal informations. The document nevertheless stated that a complaint was laid under section 2. The magistrates treated the proceedings as a nullity because they had been commenced by laying an information rather than making a complaint.

The Chief Constable applied for judicial review. The central issues were whether the document lodged at court was, in substance, a complaint and whether judicial review was an appropriate remedy.

1. Application granted. The magistrates’ decision and ancillary costs orders were quashed. The matter was remitted to the magistrates to hear and determine the complaint.
2. Proceedings under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 are civil in nature and must be initiated by a complaint, except in relation to an alleged breach of an existing order. The jurisdiction arises when a valid complaint is made. It does not depend on the subsequent issue of a summons: R v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrates ex parte Hill [1983] 1 AC 328 was applied.
3. The statutory scheme deliberately permits informality. Under rule 4 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981, a complaint need not be written or sworn. Under rule 2(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Forms) Rules 1981, prescribed forms or forms to the like effect may be used. The court must therefore determine whether the document is substantively a complaint, rather than invalidate proceedings because a criminal form was used.
4. The document expressly stated that a complaint was laid under section 2 and clearly sought to invoke the statutory jurisdiction. It was therefore properly received and treated as a complaint. The terminology appearing in the pre-printed form and the later summons did not alter that conclusion.
5. The summons was ancillary. It served to procure the defendant’s attendance and did not found jurisdiction. Any defect in it was cured by the defendant’s appearances, applying R v Hughes (1879) 4 QBD 614, as approved in ex parte Hill. Section 123 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act also constrained formal objections to defects in the summons.
6. Judicial review was appropriate because the issue concerned whether the magistrates were properly seised of the complaint. The availability of an appeal or case stated did not make judicial review inappropriate. No order for the costs of the judicial review was made.

1. Magistrates’ Court: On 25 January 2007, the magistrates held that the proceedings were a nullity because an information rather than a complaint had been laid.
2. High Court (Administrative Court): The court granted judicial review, quashed the magistrates’ decision and ancillary costs orders, and remitted the matter for the complaint to be heard and determined.