Animals - 1993

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 7 cases, and was prepared on 26 February 2010.

Hunt -v- Duckering
23 Mar 1993 QBD	Animals
	Total relinquishment of an animal is necessary, for there to have been an abandonment of the animal under the Act.
	Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 - Protection of Animals Act 1911

Bates -v- Director of Public Prosecutions
29 Mar 1993 QBD	Animals
	A car may be a public place for a dog for the purposes of the Act.
	Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Regina -v- Chief Superintendent of Metropolitan Police Ex Parte Wheeler
3 May 1993 QBD	Animals
	Exempt Dogs Index entry didn't lapse for failure to tattoo a dog before 22 November 1992.
	Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Regina -v- Knightsbridge Crown Court ex parte Dunne; Brock -v- Director of Public Prosecutions
7 Jul 1993 QBD	Animals, Crime
	"Type of Dog" has a broader meaning than the phrase "Breed of Dog". American breed standards include characteristic behaviour also.
	Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 1(1)(a)

Commission -v- Spain (Judgment) C-355/90; [1993] ECR I-4221; [1993] EUECJ C-355/90
2 Aug 1993 ECJ	European, Environment, Animals	Casemap 1 Citers
	Europa Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds require Member States to preserve, maintain and re-establish the habitats of the said birds as such, because of their ecological value. The obligations on Member States under those articles exist even before any reduction is observed in the number of birds or any risk of a protected species becoming extinct has materialized. In implementing Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Member States are not authorized to invoke, at their option, grounds of derogation based on taking other interests into account. With respect, more specifically, to the obligation to take special conservation measures for certain species under Article 4 of the directive, such grounds must, in order to be acceptable, correspond to a general interest which is superior to the general interest represented by the ecological objective of the directive. In particular, the interests referred to in Article 2 of the directive, namely economic and recreational requirements, do not enter into consideration, as that provision does not constitute an autonomous derogation from the general system of protection established by the directive. In choosing the territories which are most suitable for classification as special protection areas pursuant to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/409 on the conservation of wild birds, Member States have a certain discretion which is limited by the fact that the classification of those areas is subject to certain ornithological criteria determined by the directive, such as the presence of birds listed in Annex I to the directive, on the one hand, and the designation of a habitat as a wetland area, on the other. However, Member States do not have the same discretion under Article 4(4) of the directive to modify or reduce the extent of such areas. Where there has been a failure to classify a suitable area, in breach of Article 4, the requirements of Article 4(4) must still be complied with.
	Link[s] omitted

Director of Public Prosecutions -v- Williams
25 Oct 1993 QBD	Animals
	Justices to convict without notice from Defendant of intention to bring evidence in rebuttal.
	Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5

Regina -v- Bezzina, Regina -v- Codling, Regina -v- Elvin
7 Dec 1993 CACD	Animals, Crime
	The offence under section 3(1), requiring the owner to keep a dangerous dog under control, is one of strict liability. The court noted the difference in wording between the sections.
	Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 3(1) 3(2)(3)