R v David Allen Parsonage

R v David Allen Parsonage

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to make a destruction order as there was no evidence before him that Rocco did not constitute a danger to public safety, and the fresh evidence presented on appeal did not meet the necessary legal tests or displace the conclusion that Rocco was dangerous.

Parties
Applicant: David Allen Parsonage; Respondent: Rex (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Dog Destruction Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application to admit fresh evidence refused.
Legal Topics
Dangerous Dogs, Dog Destruction Orders, Sentencing, Fresh Evidence, Appeals
Criminal Law Animal Law Dangerous Dogs Dog Destruction Orders Sentencing Fresh Evidence Appeals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Allen Parsonage

Applicant

Rex (The Crown)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Dog Destruction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge was entitled to make a dog destruction order under section 4 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1981
  2. 2 Whether a contingent destruction order should have been considered or made
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence regarding the dog's behaviour and new custodian should be admitted and would affect the outcome

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to make a destruction order as there was no evidence before him that Rocco did not constitute a danger to public safety, and the fresh evidence presented on appeal did not meet the necessary legal tests or displace the conclusion that Rocco was dangerous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application to admit fresh evidence refused.

Orders

  • Dog destruction order for Rocco affirmed
  • Applicant disqualified from having custody of a dog for five years