L v Crown Prosecution Service

Under section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act, whether a person is in charge of a dog is a question of fact and degree. Physical control is not decisive. A person may remain in charge during a short and temporary transfer of physical control to another person where he retains the ability to command, control and retake the dog. The statutory reference to “the person” does not prevent more than one person being in charge at the same time.

The claimant appealed by way of Case Stated against convictions for being in charge of a dangerously out-of-control dog which injured a person, contrary to sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act, and for assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

The dog had briefly been handed to a co-defendant, who deliberately released it and caused the injury. The magistrates found that the claimant retained effective control and remained in charge. The central issue was whether the claimant ceased to be in charge when physical control was transferred.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates had made no error of law in finding that the claimant remained in charge of the dog while the co-defendant temporarily held its lead.
2. Whether a person is in charge of a dog is a question of fact and degree. The relevant circumstances included the claimant’s continuing proximity to the dog, his knowledge of it, its responsiveness to his commands, his ability to retake control, and the very short duration of the transfer.
3. Physical control and effective control are not necessarily identical. A person may remain in charge where he retains the right and power to control the dog, even though another person has temporary physical control.
4. The singular wording in section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act does not prevent two people from being in charge simultaneously. The claimant remained in charge because he could issue commands and control the dog before, during and after the temporary transfer.
5. The analogy with DPP v Watkins was rejected as inappropriate. The circumstances of handing over control of a motor car did not provide a proper analogy where the claimant retained effective control of the dog. Since the answer to the Case Stated question was favourable to the prosecution, the conviction for the section 47 assault also stood.

• Newham Local Justice Area: Gott DJ convicted the claimant of offences under sections 3(1) and 3(4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act and of assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of Case Stated was dismissed.