A police officer's evidence that a place was a "public place" as defined by s.10(2) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was prima facie evidence that it was a public place.Appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions ('DPP') by way of case stated. The defendant appeared before the Liverpool magistrates on 9 April 2002 charged with having a dangerous dog in a public place contrary to s.3(1) and s.3(4) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The defendant operated an electrical appliance supply business from a warehouse off a cul-de-sac street, in an industrial area in Liverpool. It was alleged that on 30 November 2001 a HGV driver collecting goods from the defendant's company was bitten by a dog under the defendant's control. The alleged incident took place on the street just outside the entrance to the defendant's warehouse. During the trial a police officer who had patrolled the area where the incident happened gave evidence that she had seen children playing on the road where the incident occurred and that she had seen cars parked by members of the general public on the road in question. She was unable to give specific dates as to when she had seen members of the general public on the road. The DPP also adduced photographs to show that the road where the incident occurred was a public place. At the end of the DPP's submissions, the defendant submitted that: (i) the DPP had failed to show that the offence occurred in a public place as defined by s.10(2) of the Act; and (ii) there was no case to answer. District Judge Lomax agreed and dismissed the case.HELD: (1) The police officer's evidence was prima facie evidence that the area where the incident took place was a public place. That evidence was consistent with the physical appearance of the road contained in the photographs that the DPP had adduced. (2) District Judge Lomax had, therefore, erred in the critical conclusion that the road was not a public place as defined by s.10(2) of the Act and that there was no case to answer.Appeal allowed. Matter remitted to magistrates.