Dodsworth v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police

A supplemental judgment may correct or clarify an earlier judgment where necessary, without reopening issues already decided. Later improvements to premises may be considered when assessing whether an earlier condition supported a finding of unfitness; improvement does not necessarily prevent that finding as a matter of law. A direction that a draft case stated provides a suitable basis for amendment concerns format and subject matter, not approval of its detailed contents. The judgment also records, without deciding the point, that destruction of a dog may in principle engage Article 8 where the owner has a sufficiently close relationship with it.

This was a supplemental judgment in two appeals by way of case stated concerning the earlier judgments in [2019] EWHC 330 (Admin) and [2019] EWHC 331 (Admin). The court addressed submissions that the February judgments had failed to deal with the condition of a garden at later dates, had misstated dates and names, and had misunderstood the effect of an earlier direction concerning amended cases stated. It also clarified the treatment of Henderson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The central questions were whether clarification or correction was required and whether the later condition of the garden altered the earlier conclusions.

1. Corrections and scope. The judge corrected errors in the February judgments concerning dates and the name of an expert. The supplemental judgment addressed only matters requiring clarification and did not permit the parties to re-argue issues already decided.
2. Cases stated. The judge accepted that the earlier description of the Chief Constable’s contentions had been overstated. The original cases stated had been referred back because they did not provide the detail required by Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 Part 35. A statement by Lane J that the appellant’s draft appeared to be a suitable basis for an amended case stated concerned its format and subject matter, not approval of its precise contents.
3. Garden and fitness. The judge had considered the evidence about the garden in August and October 2017, including the later improvements. The Crown Court had also had the subsequent clearance in mind. Those improvements did not prevent the Crown Court, as a matter of law, from relying on the earlier condition of the garden and finding that the appellant was unfit to be in charge of the dog. Remission for amendment of the case stated would have served no purpose because it would not have altered the conclusion.
4. Convention point. The judge relied on the obiter observations in Henderson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, [2018] EWHC 666 (Admin); [2018] 1 WLR 5029, as according with the original judgment. In principle, an owner or other individual may have a relationship with a dog such that its destruction interferes with family or private life under Article 8. The judge did not define the circumstances in which that right arises or decide the point.

The judgment was supplemental to the court’s earlier judgments in the two case-stated appeals, reported at [2019] EWHC 330 (Admin) and [2019] EWHC 331 (Admin). It clarified and corrected those judgments and declined to remit the case stated for further amendment.