Canine evidence

My brother is accused of murder. During the trial, the prosecution relied on evidence of a police tracker who was enlisted to assist with the investigation a few hours following the murder. The prosecution’s case was that the tracker dog was exposed to items at the crime scene where it picked up a human scent before charging to my brother’s house. My brother claims he is innocent and that his scent was picked at the deceased’s house since he had sold to the deceased some items the day before the murder incident. How will the Court treat the evidence against my brother? Also, can this evidence be interpreted incorrectly? Please enlighten me.
JM, Arusha

Sorry to hear about your brother. While we do not know all the facts of the case against your brother, your question suggests the prosecution has based its case on the canine evidence obtained during the investigation. The law on canine evidence is still in its infancy in Tanzania. The number of cases that have put this evidence to the test in our jurisdiction is limited. Nonetheless, we will provide you a general overview of how canine evidence is treated in Tanzania. In the few cases we reviewed, it is clear that Courts agree this evidence is very helpful in criminal cases. However, they also warn that it might also be more harmful than helpful if it is not thoroughly examined to establish its credibility.

In a recent case the Court of Appeal reviewed the legal framework governing the admissibility and reliability of such evidence in Kenya, Uganda, United States of America and India to make its own finding. In the end, the Court adopted the approach in India that such evidence cannot be accepted and used against an accused individual without first considering three principles. First, the qualifications of the dog handler must be property established, in general, and then evidence must be given in relation to the behaviour and skills of the particular tracker dog. Second, there must be detailed basic evidence about the reliability of the dog in issue and about the skills and reliability of the individual dog as a tracker, before evidence can properly be adduced by the dog handler about the tracking of a scent by the specific dog. Third, the evidence on the preservation of the crime scene where the evidence was obtained is of uttermost importance.

While it is true canine evidence may be interpreted incorrectly, Courts have accepted it when a strong evidentiary basis has been established. The Court of Appeal has recently held that the probative value of canine evidence would inevitably depend on the specific facts of each case by weighing the dog’s skill and reliability along with its behaviour.  Further, canine evidence alone cannot be used to establish a conviction, the evidence would only be deemed verified if it was backed up by independent, corroborative evidence. It is therefore the task of the prosecution to ensure the canine evidence on record is substantiated and credible. Your lawyer can guide you further.