Gloster v Greater Manchester Police

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an appeal against a decision of His Honour Judge Tetlow made on 19 April 1999 at Manchester County Court. The Appellant, a police officer in the Greater Manchester Force, was bitten by a police dog while acting in the course of his duties. The incident occurred during a pursuit of a suspected stolen vehicle shortly after midnight on 18 February 1996. The police dog, a German shepherd named Jack, was deployed by its handler with the intention of detaining a fleeing suspect. The dog slipped its collar after the handler slipped and fell, and subsequently bit the Appellant twice on the leg as he attempted to intercept another fleeing individual. The trial judge found the incident to be an accident without negligence and dismissed the claim for damages, which had been agreed at £3,000 subject to liability. The claim was made under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971 and in negligence. The Appellant appealed the dismissal of liability.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the police dog’s training constituted a “characteristic” not normally found in animals of the same species or sub-species for the purposes of section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971.
2. Whether the damage caused was of a kind which the animal, unless restrained, was likely to cause or which, if caused, was likely to be severe under section 2(2)(a) of the Animals Act 1971.
3. Whether the likelihood of the damage or its severity was due to the characteristic relied upon under section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971.
4. The applicability and interpretation of section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 in relation to trained police dogs acting in accordance with their training.
5. Whether negligence was established in the handling or deployment of the police dog.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The damage was caused due to the dog’s training as a police dog, which constituted a characteristic not normally found in German shepherd dogs.
• The training was the relevant characteristic causing the dog to act atypically and to bite, thus satisfying the requirements of section 2(2)(b) of the Animals Act 1971.
• The Appellant submitted that it was unnecessary to rely on the “particular circumstances” clause of section 2(2)(b), but added this as an alternative argument.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Appellant failed to establish a causal link between the characteristic relied on (training) and the likelihood of severe damage.
• The judge had found that the dog was not likely to cause damage unless restrained, and the severity of damage was due to the dog’s physical traits (size and teeth), not its training.
• The dog’s training did not imbue it with characteristics not normally found in German shepherd dogs; it was acting in accordance with its training and breed characteristics.
• The respondent did not seek to distinguish between innate and acquired characteristics but argued that the dog’s conduct was not uncharacteristic.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court carefully examined the application of section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, focusing on whether the police dog’s training constituted a “characteristic” not normally found in German shepherd dogs and whether this characteristic caused the damage. The court acknowledged the complexity and opacity of the statutory language, as well as conflicting judicial interpretations in prior cases.

The court agreed with the trial judge’s findings of fact that the dog acted in accordance with its training and that the incident was a pure accident without negligence. It was found that the dog’s training was a manifestation of a characteristic inherent to the sub-species—namely, the ability to be trained to act on command—rather than a characteristic not normally found in the sub-species.

The court rejected the argument that the training itself was an abnormal characteristic for the purposes of section 2(2)(b), reasoning that the ability and susceptibility of German shepherds to training, including limited aggression on command, is a normal characteristic of the breed. Therefore, the dog’s conduct was not due to a characteristic “not normally found” in German shepherds.

Furthermore, the court found that the likelihood of the damage being severe was attributable to the dog’s physical traits (size and teeth), not to its training. The judge’s factual finding that the dog was unlikely to cause such damage unless triggered by the handler’s command or action was upheld and not challenged on appeal.

The court noted that while the absence of liability under section 2(2) might leave some victims without a remedy under the Act, other remedies such as negligence or assault and battery remain available. The court emphasized the social utility of police dog training and the high standard of care expected in their use.

Overall, the court concluded that the dog’s behaviour was consistent with its training and breed characteristics and did not meet the statutory threshold for strict liability under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge’s decision that the Appellant’s claim under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971 and negligence failed. The decision confirms that the training of police dogs, as a normal characteristic of the breed, does not constitute an abnormal characteristic giving rise to strict liability under the Act. The ruling limits the scope of strict liability for damage caused by trained police dogs acting in accordance with their training. No new precedent altering existing legal principles was established. The direct effect is that liability under the Animals Act 1971 will not extend to accidents arising from police dogs acting as trained unless negligence or other tortious claims are established.