Marzan v RSPCA

On an appeal by case stated, the High Court may interfere with factual findings only where they involve an error of law. That may occur where a finding is unsupported by evidence or rests on a conclusion which no reasonable tribunal could reach. The weight of evidence remains a matter for the tribunal that heard it. Under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 17(1)(e), entry is lawful where the officer genuinely and reasonably believes that entry is necessary to prevent serious damage to property. Whether that belief was genuinely held and had reasonable grounds is ordinarily a question of fact and degree. The High Court cannot substitute its own assessment merely because it might have reached a different conclusion.

The claimants were convicted at Bradford Magistrates’ Court of offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 concerning the treatment of their dogs. Their appeals to Bradford Crown Court were largely dismissed, although their sentences were reduced.

The prosecution relied on evidence obtained after a police officer forced entry to the claimants’ unoccupied home. The officer relied on section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The Crown Court found that she genuinely believed that the dogs were at imminent risk of death and that her belief was based on reasonable grounds. The claimants appealed by case stated, challenging the lawfulness of the entry and the Crown Court’s findings.

1. Appeal dismissed. Under section 17(1)(e) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the relevant questions were whether the officer genuinely believed that entry was necessary to prevent serious damage to property, namely the dogs, and whether that belief was based on reasonable grounds.
2. The Crown Court had applied the correct legal test. The existence of the officer’s belief and the reasonableness of its grounds were questions of fact and degree for the tribunal which heard the evidence.
3. On an appeal by case stated under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, the High Court could intervene only on the ground that the Crown Court’s decision was wrong in law or exceeded its jurisdiction. A factual conclusion may amount to an error of law if unsupported by evidence or if based on a view of the evidence which no reasonable tribunal could hold. These are high hurdles. The High Court could not intervene merely because it would have assessed the evidence differently.
4. The judge had serious doubts about the accuracy of the officer’s evidence concerning an overwhelming odour which might have been rotting flesh. Earlier evidence had described an overpowering smell of urine and faeces but had not suggested an imminent risk of death. Nevertheless, the Crown Court had heard and tested the evidence in cross-examination. There was evidence capable of supporting its findings, and those findings were not ones which no reasonable fact-finding tribunal could have reached.
5. Although the High Court might have reached a different factual conclusion if it had jurisdiction to reconsider the evidence, it lacked that jurisdiction. The entry was therefore lawful for the purposes of the appeal.

• Bradford Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimants of seven animal-welfare offences and imposed concurrent six-month sentences.
• Bradford Crown Court: largely dismissed the appeals against conviction and reduced the sentences to four months’ imprisonment for each offence. It held that the police entry was lawful.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal by case stated.