Automated Summary
Key Facts
The accused, Deepak Kumar Jaunky, was found guilty of three offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2013: allowing an animal to stray, dog attacking persons, and failing to secure premises with a fence or gate. The incident occurred on 16 October 2017 at Nouvelle France, where the complainant was attacked by a brown dog chained in the accused's yard, causing injuries to his chest, face, and left hand. The complainant and his wife corroborated the incident, and the court found the prosecution's evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues
- The accused was charged with failing to keep premises secured by a fence, wall, or gate in breach of sections 32(2)(a) and 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2013, proven by the unenclosed yard and complainant's evidence.
- The accused was charged with dog attacking persons in breach of section 33(1)(a) of the Animal Welfare Act 2013, supported by the complainant's testimony of being attacked and injured by the dog.
- The accused was charged with allowing an animal to stray in breach of section 3(1)(h) of the Animal Welfare Act 2013, which the prosecution proved by showing the dog was chained in an unenclosed yard.
Holdings
The District Magistrate found the accused guilty on all three counts under the Animal Welfare Act 2013. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused allowed an animal to stray, the dog attacked persons, and failed to secure premises. The court relied on credible testimonies from the complainant and his wife, a medical certificate, and noted the accused's unsworn statement from the dock was not considered as sworn evidence.
Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that an unsworn statement made by the accused from the dock is not admissible as sworn evidence and cannot be tested in cross-examination, as established in Peter Stewart (Appellant) v The Queen [2011 UKPC 11] and Mohamedally Twaha v The State [2016 SCJ 218]. This principle was critical in determining that the accused's denial of dog ownership, presented in an unsworn statement, lacked evidentiary weight and did not rebut the prosecution's case.
Precedent Name
- Mohamedally Twaha v The State
- R v Nagi Al – Zubeidi
- Peter Stewart (Appellant) v The Queen
Cited Statute
Animal Welfare Act 2013
Judge Name
Devinash Oozageer
Passage Text
- In light of the credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and based on the evidence on record, the Court holds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under all three counts and as such the Court finds the accused guilty as charged under the said counts.
- I have considered the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses including the medical certificate ushered to the Court. The complainant has in a clear manner described the sequence of events leading to the said incident and the injuries he sustained have been duly noted in the PF 58. Furthermore, his version was corroborated by his wife in the course of the proceedings.