header-logo header-logo

30 November 2012 / Noël Sweeney
Issue: 7540 / Categories: Blogs
printer mail-detail

Biting back

Noël Sweeney identifies the complexities of identifying dogs

Identification evidence is the weakest form of evidence that exists. As a result of R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224, [1976] 3 All ER 549, a judge has a duty to warn a jury of the dangers of relying on identification. The dangers apply equally to civil and criminal cases. However, it is neither fair nor just to limit the protection of the law to a human. The dangers in identifying animals, be it a poodle or a pit bull, are akin to those of identifying humans rather than inanimate objects. There is no reason why a court should not apply Turnbull to animals and every reason why it should do so. For if a man is wrongly identified it can be corrected on appeal as a miscarriage of justice. If a dog is wrongly identified, no appeal could reverse destiny if his sentence is death.

Primary legislation

Although the primary legislation concerned with dangerous dogs is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA 1991), the Dogs Act

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll