Hypothetically, a woman walking in a road is attacked and bitten by a dog, she then runs off, leaves the scene and the dog disappears. Subsequently, the woman's brother appears in the street making enquiries and learns from a house owner that a neighbour has German Shepherd dogs. Without speaking to the neighbour, or ever seeing the dogs, the brother assumes one of these dogs must be the culpable party that attacked his sister.
He then proceeds to glean descriptions, colourings, breeds, et al of the neighbour's dogs and exact location where they reside from the house owner who has a grudge against the neighbour with the aforementioned dogs. The incident is then reported to the Metropolitan Police who do not attend the scene, but turn up 5 wks. later with a warrant to seize one of the neighbour's dogs. The neighbour is subsequently charged under section 3 of The Dangerous Dog's Act 1991. based upon the sole identification of the woman who was attacked.
My question being, is this identification contaminated because the witness statement was given to the police at a subsequent stage after conferring with her brother on the breed,description and location of the neighbour's dogs.
He then proceeds to glean descriptions, colourings, breeds, et al of the neighbour's dogs and exact location where they reside from the house owner who has a grudge against the neighbour with the aforementioned dogs. The incident is then reported to the Metropolitan Police who do not attend the scene, but turn up 5 wks. later with a warrant to seize one of the neighbour's dogs. The neighbour is subsequently charged under section 3 of The Dangerous Dog's Act 1991. based upon the sole identification of the woman who was attacked.
My question being, is this identification contaminated because the witness statement was given to the police at a subsequent stage after conferring with her brother on the breed,description and location of the neighbour's dogs.
Comment