Seizure of Dog under Section 5(1)(c) of the Dangerous Dogs Act

[Kati]

They'll have used something similar to this in order to decide whether or not to seize the dog - https://assets.publishing.service.go...-enforcers.pdf

[3guesses]

unfortunately this would not apply ... the police would say that they have seized the dog after obtaining information regarding an incident (possibly due to a complaint by the other party?). As such, they would have 6mths to take it to court after detaining the animal/being told about an incident. They will probably use as much of that time as possible in order to ascertain how likely they are to get a 'conviction'

OK, thanks. As I said, the dog was seized a week after the incident so the 6 months since the seizure is in a few days - at that point S127 of the Magistrates' Court Act then precludes any prosecution by the police?

[3guesses]

The owner needs to find out if the police have decided to test the dog under bsl rules ... if so then any challenge will need to take that into account.

A formal complaint to the police about their not being kept informed could result in the police telling the owner where the dog is being kept, but until the owner knows exactly why the dog is being held there would probably not be much progress apart from that. The owner will not be permitted to see the dog while it is being detained.

I believe at the time of the seizure the officer stated that the dog would be returnd in a few days after being assessed by a dog specialist. 6 months is not a few days. If they have not had the dog assessed, surely that constitutes gross negligence on the part of the police?

[3guesses]

although I'm doubtful that will work (see my previous posts) ... the police will likely be looking to test the dog to see if it fits the 'type' for BSL as there has been an incident (post #4). As such they will argue that the seizure is necessary/not unlawful at this time

At the time of the seizure, the officer stated in writing that the dog was seized under S5(1), and this was later clarified by his senior officer as S5(1)(c) ie "dangerously out of control" not a banned breed. Can the police turn around 6 months later and retrospectively change the grounds for the seizure? That seems like perverting the course of justice to me.

[3guesses]

They'll have used something similar to this in order to decide whether or not to seize the dog - https://assets.publishing.service.go...-enforcers.pdf

That's VERY helpful. Thank you very much.

[Kati]

I believe at the time of the seizure the officer stated that the dog would be returnd in a few days after being assessed by a dog specialist.

the assessment, while it should be timely, needs to be carried out by a specially trained person (quite often a police officer) ... from the sounds of it they will be measuring the dog to ascertain if it is 'of type' for BSL

this might be worth a look at - https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved...gownership/bsl

[Kati]

At the time of the seizure, the officer stated in writing that the dog was seized under S5(1), and this was later clarified by his senior officer as S5(1)(c) ie "dangerously out of control" not a banned breed. Can the police turn around 6 months later and retrospectively change the grounds for the seizure? That seems like perverting the course of justice to me.

if they have stated they are assessing the dog, they will be assessing it under BSL regs

[3guesses]

the assessment, while it should be timely, needs to be carried out by a specially trained person (quite often a police officer) ... from the sounds of it they will be measuring the dog to ascertain if it is 'of type' for BSL

this might be worth a look at - https://www.rspca.org.uk/getinvolved...gownership/bsl

There's no way the dog would conform to a pitbull (or other banned breed) specification.

I'm not sure how the police could argue that they are doing the assessment in a timely fashion if they still haven't completed it after 6 months.

[3guesses]

Further update: the owner has now received a summons to appear at court. The summons states "Date signed: 14/05/2018 11:46", and the incident occurred on 14/11/2017 at 10:15am so the complaint was not actually made within the 6-month time limit prescribed in S127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980.

Now that the owner has been charged, are they entitled to access to all of the evidence against them that is held by the police?

[des8]

The complaint would have been laid before the court prior to the summons being issued.
The time limit applies to the laying of information, not the issuing of the summons
It is settled law that an "information" can be laid at court within 6 months but served later.


Regarding disclosure of evidence see here:https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...ce-information

[3guesses]

The complaint would have been laid before the court prior to the summons being issued.
The time limit applies to the laying of information, not the issuing of the summons
It is settled law that an "information" can be laid at court within 6 months but served later.

The Magistrates Court has confirmed that the date and time stated on the letter (in the "Date signed" section) is the date and time that the information was laid, which makes it ~90 minutes outside of the 6-month time limit from when the incident occured that is prescribed by Section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980. Does that technicality need to be mentioned at the plea hearing, or can it be kept in the back pocket for use if necessary during the trial (if there is one)?

[3guesses]

Regarding disclosure of evidence see here:https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidanc...ce-information

Thanks for the link. Part 10 of the Criminal Procedure Rules makes mention of "the beginning of the day of the first hearing" - where is "beginning of the day" defined? Also, presumably the first hearing is just a plea hearing and if the owner intends to plead "not guilty" presumably they don't really need a solicitor at that stage? (Obviously they will likely want one for the trial itself.)

[des8]

I would guess that if the information was laid outside the time limits it should be brought to the attention of the magistrates at the first possible moment.
It might be worth consulting a solicitor now, as there might be a way of heading off the whole matter and recovering your dog without the trial.

I believe this sort of offence is triable either way i.e. in magistrates court or sent to crown court.

At the first hearing you will be given a statement of the evidence, details of the offence, date and place of trial and the opportunity to plead

[3guesses]

I would guess that if the information was laid outside the time limits it should be brought to the attention of the magistrates at the first possible moment.
It might be worth consulting a solicitor now, as there might be a way of heading off the whole matter and recovering your dog without the trial.

I believe this sort of offence is triable either way i.e. in magistrates court or sent to crown court.

At the first hearing you will be given a statement of the evidence, details of the offence, date and place of trial and the opportunity to plead

OK, thanks. I guess the only danger in the owner showing their hand by mentioning that the information was laid outisde the time limits is that doing so provides an opportunity for the prosecution to state that the incident occurred at a later time/date than it did. Surely it's safer to wait for the evidence to be presented and the exact date and time the incident occurred established by the prosecution? That way there can be little or no contention on that point.

BTW, if it is tried at the Magistrates' Court would it be a judge or a magistrate that conducted the trial?

[des8]

OK, thanks. I guess the only danger in the owner showing their hand by mentioning that the information was laid outisde the time limits is that doing so provides an opportunity for the prosecution to state that the incident occurred at a later time/date than it did Are you suggesting they might commit perjury? Shame on you lol. Surely it's safer to wait for the evidence to be presented and the exact date and time the incident occurred established by the prosecution? That way there can be little or no contention on that point. I did say I was guessing, and advised consulting a solicitor

BTW, if it is tried at the Magistrates' Court would it be a judge or a magistrate that conducted the trial? Magistrate

Comments in red