Bitten evidence : LETTER
I read with some irritation the Weasel's account of a ruling in the Court of Appeal on the admissibility of a dog's evidence (Up & Down Canary Wharf, 4 February). I have considerable experience of the training and olfactory prowess of police dogs, and agree wholeheartedly with Lord Taylor that corroborative evidence based on the behaviour of a well-trained dog, known to be reliable, is quite acceptable. The Weasel lightly suggests that this made the dog an acceptable witness in a court of law, which, of course, is nonsense. On comparable grounds he could have claimed that a pair of lines of dark blobs constituting two DNA profiles or a pair of fingerprints could also be called as witnesses.
In fact, the witness in this case was Ben's handler, a constable of the Thames Valley Police, who vouched for the reliability of her dog, just as an expert witness vouches for the reliability of a DNA profile or a fingerprint.
The handler's task would, however, have been easier if there was well- validated information on the routine training and performance of police dogs, and my colleagues and I hope to be able to supply this in the near future, so that British courts can begin to use a dog's evidence as routinely as the Hungarian, Dutch and German ones have been doing for years.
barbara sommerville
Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine
Cambridge
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies