ELAINE PATTERSON v. PROCURATOR FISCAL, DUMFRIES

The appellant in this appeal by Stated Case is Elaine Patterson who was convicted in the District Court at Annan of a contravention of Section 1(1) of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, in that she was the owner of two dogs which worried sheep by attacking them. She was granted leave to appeal in respect of the issues focused in the first three questions only. When she opened the appeal, Miss Scott indicated that she intended to argue the points raised in the first two questions only.

At the trial the principal issue between the Crown and the defence related to the identity of the dogs which had been worrying the sheep and, in particular, whether the dogs doing the worrying had been two dogs, Simba and Scrumpy, which belonged to the appellant. Unfortunately, the dog said to be Scrumpy had had to be shot by one of the farmers whose sheep had been worried. While the appellant denied that this dog was Scrumpy, she accepted that Scrumpy had disappeared. Simba is still alive and two witnesses had seen him at the police station and had identified him as one of the dogs concerned.

"We considered that the point at issue was a matter of law - that the photographs would require to be proved by the author at some point during the trial."

We answer the first Question in the case in the negative and the second by saying that, had the photographs been admitted, the Justices might possibly have reached a different verdict. We shall therefore quash the conviction of the appellant in respect of the two dogs and substitute a conviction on the basis that she was the owner of one dog which on the date in question worried livestock, namely sheep, by attacking them. Since the conviction now relates to a single dog, we shall quash the fine of �125 and substitute a fine of �75. The compensation order made by the Justices is unaffected.