there is a phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’. Is this a criminal or civil case? 25 JUNE, 2 JULY 1993. In Brock, the Queens Bench Divisional Court decided that ‘type’ had a wider meaning than ‘breed’ and it could cover dogs A2. As they were positioned there, they were not thought to be passers-by. For example, in Cheeseman v DPP (1990) the defendant was witnessed masturbating in a public toilet by two police officers. Here, the Supreme Court held, firstly, that a person can be found guilty of murder where their action is more than a minimal factor in causing the death. This led to a debate as to whether ‘type’ means the same as ‘breed’. I will now state the legal process and there result of the case DPP v. Dr. Jones and Mr Lloyd starting with the magistrates’ court. GLIDEWELL LJ AND CRESSWELL J. Dunne v DPP: Court clarifies law in relation to causation and duress in murder. It is impossible for Parliament to spell out how a statute should apply in every situation. The dispute of the meaning of …
A6. Brock v DPP 1993 There was a dispute over whether the dog in question fell into the category "any dog of the type known as a pit bull terrier". The court ruled that he could not get the information. Once law has been created, it must be applied to real situations. Brock v DPP 1993 There was a dispute over whether the dog in question fell into the category "any dog of the type known as a pit bull terrier". The court was entitled to consider evidence of a dog’s behaviour and to use the American Dog Breeders’ Association standard as a guide when determining whether a dog was “of the type known as the pit bull terrier” under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 s.1 as the type was bred in the United States of America. My Lords, I have had the advantage of reading in draft the opinion of my noble and learned friend Lord Steyn. On the 3 of Oct 1995 the appellants (Dr. Jones and Mr Lloyd) were convicted of the offence under section 14B (2) by the Salisbury Justices in Salisbury magistrates. (1993) The Times, 23 July. Q3. Brock V DPP (1993) a broad term the dangerous dog act 1991 has the phrase: ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’. LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY. The dispute of the meaning of … Brock V DPP (1993) a broad term the dangerous dog act 1991 has the phrase: ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’. Brock v DPP (23 July 1993) In the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991 S.I.) Who are the opposing sides and what are their titles? Brock v DPP (23 July 1993) In the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991 S.I.) Cheeseman V. DPP 1990 Cheeseman revoltingly uncovered himself in some open toilets. GLIDEWELL LJ. News > UK Law Report: Dog 'type' not the same as 'breed': Regina v Knightsbridge Crown Court, ex parte Dunne.
there is a phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’. The court declared that this had a wider meaning than bread and therefore covers dogs who were not pedigree but had substantial qualities of such a dog.
there is a phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’. As they were not considered as passers-by, he had not submitted an offense.