Animals - 1996

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 04 October 2008.

Bates -v- United Kingdom 26280/95; Unreported, 16 January 1996
16 Jan 1996 ECHR	Human Rights, Animals, Crime	Casemap 1 Citers
	The claimant sought to challenge the rebuttable presumption as to the breed of a dog enacted in section 5(5) of the Act. Held: The applicant had been entitled but, although represented, had failed, to call evidence to prove at trial that his dog was not of the breed proscribed by the Act, and that the court had relied on an admission by him that the dog was of the breed proscribed. The section was held to fall within reasonable limits. The complaint was inadmissible.
	Statute References omitted

Jaundrill -v- Gillett
30 Jan 1996 CA	Animals
	A horse keeper was not liable for damage caused by a horse which had been maliciously released by another onto the road.

Greener -v- Director of Public Prosecutions
15 Feb 1996 QBD	Animals, Crime
	The offence committed by a dog owner by his failure to secure the dog successfully, was capable of being committed by acts of omission.
	Statute References omitted

Regina -v- Haringey Magistrates, ex parte Cragg [1996] EWHC Admin 162
28 Oct 1996 Admn	Animals
	A dangerous dog case was not to be allowed to be brought again after previous acquittal of the same dog and owner.
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

R G Langridge, Canterbury City Council -v- Howletts and Port Lympne Estates [1996] EWHC Admin 282
27 Nov 1996 Admn	Health and Safety, Animals, Licensing	Casemap 1 Cites
	The company appealed a prohibition notice with regard to its operation of a zoo. A keeper had been attacked by tigers while they were being fed. He had died. The company appealed the terms of the notices, saying that the Act had to allow for the idiosyncracies of the particular business. The company sought particularly to establish social contact between keepers and their animals. The real issue was whether the company could properly allow an employee to enter the tigers' enclosure. The code of practice required keepers not to enter the enclosure. Held: the safety legislation cannot be used to specify what work can be done, only the manner in which it was to be done: ". . although in the ordinary way a dangerous piece of machinery must be securely fenced, there may be circumstances concerned with the particular task that the employer (or his employee) is doing (their work) which make it necessary that the activity, which would by any ordinary standards be regarded as dangerous, may nevertheless have a legitimacy which justifies it but which would otherwise have laid the employer open to proceedings for a breach of his statutory duty." and "The Act is not seeking to legislate as to what work could or could not be performed, but is properly concerned with the manner of its doing. "
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Colfox -v- Dorset County Council [1996] EWHC Admin 337
10 Dec 1996 Admn	Animals, Crime
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Knightsbridge Crown Court, Commissioner of Police for Metropolitan Police, Wells Street Magistrates' Court ex parte Leslie Victor Crabbe [1996] EWHC Admin 380
18 Dec 1996 Admn Lord Justice Mccowan and Mr Justice Collins	Crime, Animals, Magistrates
	The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4). Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant's means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.
	Statute References omitted
	Link[s] omitted