Case summary - Fitzgerald v CPS [2024] EWHC 869 (Admin)
Fitzgerald v CPS [2024] EWHC 869 (Admin)
Facts
The case involved a dog, Yosser, whose owner, the appellant, had previously been convicted under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for failing to control the dog. This resulted in a Contingent Destruction Order being imposed with conditions. Yosser’s owner later breached these conditions by walking him without a muzzle, leading to another incident where he nipped someone’s arm.
The appellant pleaded guilty to a second offence of owning a dangerously out-of-control dog, and the Crown Court imposed a Dog Destruction Order, arguing the owner was unfit to care for Yosser. Evidence presented during the appeal included a report by an expert stating that Yosser could be safely managed under different ownership and strict conditions.
The Crown Court ignored this unchallenged expert evidence and upheld the Dog Destruction Order.
Legal principles
Courts cannot disregard unchallenged expert evidence unless there are valid and clearly articulated reasons.
The principles in TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48, originally applied in civil proceedings, extend to criminal cases, affirming the importance of cross-examination to ensure fairness.
A party that fails to challenge evidence by cross-examination is generally bound by it unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Fairness in proceedings requires ensuring all evidence is duly considered, and witnesses or experts have an opportunity to clarify or defend their findings.
Decisions contrary to unchallenged evidence risk creating unfair outcomes and undermining the integrity of judicial processes.
Decision
The High Court, led by Coulson LJ, quashed the Dog Destruction Order, holding that the Crown Court erred in law by rejecting the unchallenged expert report without justification. The judgment emphasised that courts must respect the adversarial process and cannot arbitrarily discount evidence not subject to cross-examination.
Related cases
- TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48 established the obligation to challenge evidence through cross-examination in civil cases.
- Chen v Ng (British Virgin Islands) [2017] UKPC 27 noted that fairness requires a witness to have an opportunity to respond to significant challenges to their testimony, particularly when those challenges are central to the outcome of the case.
- R v Turnbull [1977] QB 224 addressed the assessment of evidence and the directions a judge must make to a jury to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings.
Conclusion
Fitzgerald v CPS underscores the principle that fairness in judicial processes demands rigorous adherence to rules of evidence, particularly regarding expert testimony. This decision serves as a reminder to both parties and courts about the procedural safeguards essential to justice, reaffirming the weight of unchallenged expert evidence in decision-making. It further highlights the risks of procedural shortcuts in undermining fairness and the integrity of legal outcomes.
