Sheriff Appeal Court refuses conviction appeal after woman’s dog bit parcel courier

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] SAC (Crim) 4
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  Sheriff Appeal Court
• Judge:
  Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar

Appellant Janet Macfarlane challenged her conviction on the basis that there were no grounds for a reasonable apprehension that her dog, Diego, would injure any person. The sheriff imposed an order for contingent destruction of the dog requiring that Diego was kept on a lead and muzzled when in public places.

The appeal was heard by Sheriff Principal Aisha Anwar with Appeal Sheriffs Iain Fleming and David Young. Osborne, advocate, appeared for the appellant and Prentice KC for the respondent.

Shrugged her shoulders

On 14 April 2024 the complainer attended at the appellant’s property, which displayed four signs warning of a dog, to deliver a parcel. He approached the front gate and saw Diego. The dog was barking and had his two front paws up on the gate of the property. A man in the garden of the property shouted a command to the dog, which left the gate and disappeared towards the house.

The appellant walked towards the complainer at the gate, which remained closed. As the complainer passed the parcel over to the appellant, the dog put his head through the bars of the gate and bit the complainer’s right hand. When he complained about this, the appellant shrugged her shoulders and pointed to the warning signs at the front of the property.

The sheriff found that there were reasonable grounds for apprehension that Diego would injure a person based on the signage at the property and the dog’s failure to obey a command to leave the gate. She also took account of the appellant’s evidence that it was her normal practice to put Diego in a car when anyone attended at the property, but disregarded her evidence that the signs were placed there by the previous owner of the property.

On behalf of the appellant, it was submitted that the findings in fact did not support the sheriff’s assessment that there had been a reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure a person. The evidence before the court was that, until the incident, Diego had never injured a person or another animal. The incident was an instantaneous episode with no opportunity for the appellant to issue a command to the dog to desist.

For the respondent it was submitted that no previous incident was required to assert reasonable apprehension. The sheriff had been entitled to have regard to the dog’s size and strength, its propensities and its refusal to obey a command by returning to the gate.

Entitled to accept

Delivering the opinion of the court, Sheriff Principal Anwar said of the sheriff’s assessment: “Findings in fact do not exist in isolation; they are made upon a consideration of the evidence which has been accepted or rejected. The sheriff was entitled to reject the appellant’s evidence that she had only installed one of the signs displayed at the property; the sheriff assessed the appellant’s evidence that the remaining signs had been displayed by the previous owners of the property as lacking in credibility. The sheriff was entitled to accept the evidence of the complainer that after he had been bitten by the dog, the appellant had shrugged her shoulders and walked away.”

She continued: “The presence of signs alone would, in our judgment, be a precarious basis upon which to seek a conviction under section 3 of the Act. Warning signs can be displayed for a number of reasons by responsible and considerate dog owners, including to warn those who dislike or are nervous of dogs, for security purposes or to warn other dog owners who may be concerned and may wish to ensure their own dog is on a leash when passing. In the present case, however, the evidence before the sheriff did not comprise the signs alone.”

Considering the other evidence relied upon by the sheriff, Sheriff Principal Anwar said: “She had regard to the signs displayed at the property, and in particular to: the warning that the dog may bite; the appellant’s reaction to the complainer’s injury; the dog’s failure to obey a command to stay away from the gate; the appellant’s normal practice of commanding the dog to remain in a car when anyone attended at the gate which was indicative of an unusual level of concern about its behaviour; and she had regard to the dog’s breed, size and strength.”

She concluded: “There was sufficient evidence pointing to knowledge on the part of the appellant prior the incident as to the dog’s potential behaviour to allow the sheriff to find that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure someone.”

Having determined the sheriff was entitled to make the findings she did, the appeal was therefore refused.