Never work with children or animals- although if you do, it might just pay off.

I noticed a Facebook page doing the rounds yesterday which read 'RIP Pippin the Dog'. Some of you may remember the children's TV show called 'Come Outside' which featured the eccentric Lynda Baron (from Open All Hours) and her dog Pippin. Of course, anyone who watched the show would know that the same dog did not play the role of Pippin throughout the series. A dog called 'Mr Higgins', which was, I believe, a descendant of Pippin, also played the role.  Anyway I digress.

The death (whether it be of Pippin, Mr Higgins, or some other dog, or perhaps just a mistake) reminded me of a case I dealt with very early on in my career. I was representing a middle aged lady from North London who owned a dog which was not too dissimilar from Pippin. She was a lady of good character who had been charged with an offence under the Control of Dogs Order 1992. Yes, I'd never heard of it either. The offence was as follows:

"The owner of a dog or the person in charge of a dog who, without lawful authority or excuse, proof of which shall lie on him, causes or permits the dog to be in a highway or in a place of public resort not wearing a collar as prescribed in article 2(1) above shall be guilty of an offence against the Animal Health Act 1981."

The lady in questions dog was a puppy, albeit a boisterous one. It had, so the account went, escaped from her garden whereby she chased it up the street. She couldn't catch it. The dog was picked up by a dog warden and taken to the shelter. Because the dog was microchipped, the warden was able to locate the owner who came to collect the dog (she also had to pay a fee to cover the 'expenses' that the shelter had occurred). A week or so later she received a letter from the local council to say that she was being prosecuted under the aforementioned provision. She pleaded not guilty to the charge. Her defence was twofold: (i) the fact that the dog had escaped was beyond her control and therefore amounted to an 'excuse', and (ii) the dog did, in fact, wear a collar but it was able to take it off itself.

At my request, the dog was brought to court. I took it into the waiting room and watched as it bounced around and, sure enough, took its collar off the moment it was put on. Would it do it at trial?

The trial commenced and the point came where I 'called' the dog. This excited much amusement within the courtroom, with the Chairwoman remarking that if the dog 'did its business' I would be the one that had to pick it up. The collar was placed on the dog and the dog was let loose. True to form, the dog removed the collar within seconds. I thought I was on to something good here.

There was then an argument as to the standard of proof. The Crown said that the legal burden was on the Defence. I made representations that we simply bore an evidential burden which the Crown had to rebut beyond reasonable doubt. The Bench accepted my proposition.

However, did I win the case in the Magistrates' Court? No. The lady was convicted and given a Conditional Discharge. We appealed that decision to the Crown Court where the conviction was overturned and the Judge made a number of remarks about the costs involved in prosecuting this case.

So all's well that ends well.

I was pretty surprised that this lady had to go through two trials all because her dog had escaped. I also feel that the legislation is pretty outdated. I can understand why it is important that dogs can be identified through having a collar and tag but let us not forget that this lady had had her dog microchipped as most responsible dog owners now do. It seems to me that this was somewhat of a pointless (and costly) prosecution of a nice lady who, on the face of it, was a responsible dog owner.

Anyhow, now you can see the link between Pippin the Dog, Mr Higgins and a prosecution under the Control of Dogs Order 1992!