England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL
		23rd June 2011

1. MR JUSTICE WALKER: This application for leave to appeal against conviction has been referred to the full court by the Registrar.
2. The applicant stood trial on 16 February 2011 in the Crown Court at Snaresbrook before Mr Recorder Kavanagh QC and a jury on a count of being in charge of a dog which caused injury while dangerously out of control in a public place. The offence in question involved contravention of subsections (1) and (4) of section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and fell within the jurisdiction of the Crown Court. Prior to summing-up the Recorder canvassed with counsel whether an alternative verdict of guilty of a lesser offence should be left to the jury. The lesser offence was that of being in charge of a dog while dangerously out of control in a public place contrary to section 3 subsection (1) of the 1991 Act. Counsel agreed that this was appropriate.
3. The jury acquitted the applicant of the offence charged in the indictment but convicted him of the lesser offence. The case was then adjourned for sentence.
4. Prior to sentence the Recorder contacted counsel, drawing their attention to the requirements of section 6(3) and (4) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. Under section 6(3) a jury which acquits a defendant of an offence can convict him of another offence falling within the jurisdiction of the court. A summary offence will fall within the jurisdiction of the court only if specified in section 40 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The offence under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act, however, is not so specified.
5. On learning of the point raised by the Recorder, Mr Hayes, on behalf of the prosecution, researched the matter and identified that a similar problem had arisen in R v Buckley [2009] EWCA Crim 1178. This court reached the conclusion in that case that the conviction for the lesser offence must be quashed. Cranston J, giving the judgment of the court, identified the difficulty: there is no relevant statutory provision enabling the Crown Court to deal with this particular summary offence.
6. In these circumstances the respondent does not contest the appeal. We are driven to the conclusion that the conviction must be quashed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. We grant the necessary extension of time, we grant leave to appeal and we quash the conviction accordingly.