[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Kirk v Spratley & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 689 (10 May 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/689.html Cite as: [2001] EWCA Civ 689

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EPSOM COUNTY COURT
(His Honour Judge Hull QC)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2
		Thursday, 10th May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE WALLER: We are going to give an extension of time for appealing against the order for committal which was made by His Honour Judge Hull QC on 9th April. We do that (a) because we think there is some reasonable excuse for the delay but (b), more importantly, because we are troubled about the form of that order, it being an order to commit Mrs Spratley and her daughter to prison.
2. There are two factors so far as that anxiety is concerned. The first is that the order does not make clear exactly what period of suspension should apply once there has been compliance with the reduction of the number of dogs on or before 9th May. Secondly, even if it did (or even if, by implication, it can now be read so to do) that second paragraph is unsatisfactory and probably does not reflect what the judge intended. What I mean by that is that at the moment it commits to prison if after 10th May the dogs were to exceed six in number; whereas the most appropriate procedure (and probably that which was intended by the judge) would be that, the dogs having been reduced to six or below, if there were to be any increase in that number after that date, there should be a further application to commit rather than there being an automatic committal to prison.
3. We are also just a little anxious about the fact that the original order of Judge Morgan expired on 27th January 2001, no order having been made to extend it prior to its expiry, and there may be a point on the fact that an attempt was made to extend it after that date. That is perhaps a less meritorious point.
4. Thus we are going to direct that this matter should come on as a matter of some urgency. If possible, it should be relisted before us next week. We would also suggest that Mrs Spratley and her daughter visit the Citizens Advice Bureau in this building and attempt to obtain a lawyer to represent them on the appeal. The CAB may be able to do that through the Pro Bono Unit or they may be able to organise some form of legal aid. That is a step that Mrs Spratley and her daughter would be wise to take.
5. In the meanwhile, until the appeal comes on, the order for committal made by His Honour Judge Hull should be suspended. I would emphasise that there is still in force an order that keeps the number of the dogs below six (or certainly very arguably so) and that Mrs Spratley and her daughter should not contemplate that, by reason of what this court is doing today, they are released from that obligation. They should do everything in their power to comply with that requirement. They told us that the dogs on those premises are now below six in number, some having been put in kennels. It is not for us to advise them as to the ways and means of complying with the requirement, but on any view they should not contemplate that they are now simply free to bring further dogs back on to their premises.
6. LADY JUSTICE HALE:I agree.
Order: extension of time for appealing granted and permission to appeal order for committal granted; appeal to be listed as a matter of urgency (time estimate ½ day); order for committal suspended pending hearing of the appeal; costs reserved.