Buckley, R. v

A Crown Court has no jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to the summary form of an offence under Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 3 where no statutory provision confers that jurisdiction. A resulting conviction must be quashed.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Chester Crown Court to the non-aggravated, summary form of being the owner of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place, contrary to section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. He received a conditional discharge, costs, a ten-year disqualification from owning a dog, and an order for the dog’s forfeiture and destruction.

The appeal initially concerned sentence. The Criminal Appeal Office identified a jurisdictional issue, and the appellant was granted leave to appeal his conviction. The Crown conceded that the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to accept the plea. The court also considered whether proceedings for the aggravated offence, previously left on the file, should be revived.

1. Appeal allowed. The court granted leave to appeal against conviction and quashed the conviction.
2. The appellant had been committed for trial on an aggravated offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but pleaded guilty at the case-management hearing to its non-aggravated summary form. The Crown Court had no jurisdiction to deal with that summary offence. There were no relevant statutory provisions enabling it to accept the guilty plea.
3. The jurisdictional defect was fundamental. It required the conviction to be quashed, irrespective of the penalties imposed under section 4 of the Act.
4. The Crown stated that it would not reinstate proceedings for the aggravated offence which had been allowed to lie on the file. No further criminal proceedings were therefore revived.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction: [2009] EWCA Crim 1178.
• Crown Court at Chester: Accepted a guilty plea to the non-aggravated summary offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and imposed sentence. The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to do so.