HL Deb 17 March 1938 vol 108 cc189-92

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The Earl of Onslow in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Amendment of s. 2 of 34 & 35 Vict. c. 56.

1. Where any person deems himself aggrieved by any order, judgment or determination of or by any matter or thing done by any court of summary jurisdiction under Section two of the Dogs Act, 1871, such person may appeal there-from in the manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction (Appeals) Act, 1933, to a Court of Quarter Sessions.

LORD MERTHYR had Amendments on the Paper to make the clause read as follows:

  1. "(1) Where an order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction under Section two of 190 the Dogs Act, 1871, directing a dog to be destroyed, the owner of the dog may appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions.
  2. "(2) Upon any such order as aforesaid being made by a court of summary jurisdiction, then, unless the owner of the dog gives notice to that court that he does not intend to appeal, the order shall, until alter the determination of the appeal or until the appeal can no longer be prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, as the case may be, have effect as if it had been an order under the said Section two directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment on the Paper. It will simplify and shorten the wording of Clause 1 of this Bill as it stands without in any way detracting from its effect. It removes a number of superfluous words, and it has been suggested that the purpose of the Bill will be fulfilled if this Amendment is passed in conjunction with the next following Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out from ("Where") to ("court") in line 8 and insert ("an order is made by a").—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MERTHYR

The next Amendment, like its predecessor, simplifies the wording of Clause 1, but it also inserts the provision that the appeal which is provided by this Bill shall only apply to an order directing a dog to be destroyed and not to an order directing a dog to be kept under proper control. I think it will be obvious to your Lordships that it would be merely frivolous for any person to appeal to a Court of Quarter Sessions against an order directing him to keep his dog under control.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, have out from ("1871") to ("to") in line 11 and insert ("directing a dog to be destroyed, the owner of the dog may appeal").—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord MERTHYR

The last Amendment on this clause adds a subsection which introduces something that is a little new in the Bill. Its purpose it to provide that where an order has been made by a court of summary jurisdiction directing that a dog shall be destroyed and an appeal is being made to a Court of Quarter Sessions against the order of the lower court then, pending the hearing of that appeal and during the interval between the hearing of the case in the lower court and the hearing of the appeal, the order that the dog shall be destroyed shall be construed as if it were an order that the dog shall be kept under proper control. In other words, during that short interval, although no order has been specifically made that the dog shall be kept under proper control, this Amendment is designed to ensure that that shall be the effect. I venture to suggest that that is quite reasonable and I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 12, at end, insert: ("(2) Upon any such order as aforesaid being made by a court of summary jurisdiction, then, unless the owner of the dog gives notice to that court that he does not intend to appeal, the order shall, until after the determination of the appeal or until the appeal can no longer be prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, as the case may he, have effect as if it had been an order under the said Section two directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control.")—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Short title.

2. This Act may be cited as the Dogs Act (1871) Amendment Act, 1938.

LORD MERTHYR moved to leave out "Act (1871)." The noble Lord said: This Amendment merely shortens and simplifies the short title of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, leave out ("Act (1871)"). —(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MERTHYR moved to add the following subsections: (2) This Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland. (3) In the application of this Act to Scotland, Section one shall have effect as if— (a) for subsection (1) the following subsection were substituted— (1) Where an order is made by a court of summary jurisdiction under Section two of the Dogs Act, 1871, directing a dog to be destroyed the owner of the dog shall have the like right of appeal as if the order were a conviction. and (b) in subsection (2) for the words 'appeal can no longer be prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts' there were substituted the words 'expiry of the period specified in Section sixty-one of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908'.

The noble Lord said: The first of these new subsections provides that the Act shall not apply to Northern Ireland and the next relates to the application of the Bill to Scotland. It is inserted to conform with the Scottish law and to alter the wording of Clause i in order to provide proper machinery for appeal in accordance with Scottish law. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1 line 14, at end insert the said new subsections.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.