Harry, R. v

When deciding whether dogs involved in an aggravated dangerous-dog offence should be destroyed, the court must assess the risk they pose to public safety in the light of all relevant circumstances. Those circumstances include the dogs’ history of aggression and the owner’s history of control.

Before ordering immediate destruction, the court should ordinarily consider a contingent destruction order under Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, section 4. Where a future risk remains but can be adequately managed through proper restraint, control and, where appropriate, neutering, such an order may protect the public without requiring immediate destruction.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Mold to two offences of being in charge of dogs which caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. The Recorder imposed concurrent conditional discharges and ordered the destruction of both dogs.

The attack occurred after building workmen left a side gate open and the appellant released the dogs into the garden without checking that it was secure. The victim sustained multiple bite injuries. The dogs had no prior history of comparable behaviour, and the owners had otherwise exercised responsible control.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the destruction orders and sought to adduce a veterinary behavioural report. The central issues were whether the report should be received and whether immediate destruction, rather than a contingent order imposing control measures, was justified.

Appeal allowed. The Court quashed the immediate destruction orders and substituted contingent destruction orders.

1. The Court received the veterinary report under section 23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. It was relevant to the statutory assessment under section 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and the Recorder should have granted the requested adjournment to obtain it. The report showed that neither dog displayed aggression as a normal behavioural characteristic, although it recommended restraint and control and, for Snoop, castration.

2. The Court applied the principles set out in R v Flack [2008] EWCA Crim 204. A court must consider all relevant circumstances, including the history of the dogs’ aggressive behaviour and the owner’s control. Before ordering immediate destruction, it should ordinarily consider a contingent order requiring proper control under section 4.

3. The attack was frightening, sustained and caused injury. It created a future risk to public safety despite the dogs’ previous good history and the favourable expert evidence. The Court was therefore not satisfied that the dogs presented no danger to public safety. However, the risk could appropriately be addressed by a contingent destruction order rather than immediate destruction.

4. Destruction was ordered unless both dogs were kept under proper control and restraint. The owner was also required to ensure that Snoop was neutered within 56 days.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against the destruction orders and substituted contingent destruction orders: [2010] EWCA Crim 673.
• Crown Court at Mold: On 11 September 2009, following guilty pleas to two dangerous-dog offences, imposed concurrent 12-month conditional discharges and ordered both dogs to be destroyed.