(1993) The Times, 23 July
R v Crown Court at Knightsbridge, ex parte Dunne; Brock v Director of Public Prosecutions
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
GLIDEWELL LJ AND CRESSWELL J
25 JUNE, 2 JULY 1993
In these two cases, although somewhat different questions are raised, essentially the same point is in issue, namely the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’ in s 1(1)(a) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. We heard argument in the two cases consecutively. It is convenient to deal with them both in this one judgment.
The applicant, Mr Gary Dunne, was charged that on 26 November 1991–
‘being the owner of a dog to which Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applied, namely a dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier, [he] allowed such dog to be in a public place … without being muzzled’
contrary to s 1(2)(d) of the 1991 Act. He was convicted at the Wells Street Magistrates’ Court on 30 December 1991. He appealed to the Crown Court at Knightsbridge. On 5 June 1992 that court (Judge Mendl and magistrates) decided that (1) the applicant had failed to prove that his dog was not of the type known as the pit bull terrier, but (2) the prosecution had failed to prove that the dog was unmuzzled. The court therefore allowed the applicant’s appeal.