PY, R. v (Rev 1)

PY, R. v (Rev 1)

Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not require oral notification in open court; notification by email is sufficient. The exemption under section 10(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not apply to a police constable merely exercising a police dog, as this does not constitute 'using' the dog for a policing activity.

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: PY
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Binding Ruling Under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Dangerous Dogs, Prosecution Appeals, Statutory Exemptions, Criminal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

PY

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Prosecution Appeal Against Binding Ruling Under Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

  1. 1 Whether the statutory requirements for prosecution appeals under section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require oral notification in open court or permit notification by email
  2. 2 Whether the exemption under section 10(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies to a police constable exercising a police dog off duty

Ratio Decidendi

Section 58 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 does not require oral notification in open court; notification by email is sufficient. The exemption under section 10(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not apply to a police constable merely exercising a police dog, as this does not constitute 'using' the dog for a policing activity.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The matter is remitted to the Crown Court for proceedings to continue.