Commons: 16 July 2018; Westminster Hall; Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers; Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers Volume 645: debated on Monday 16 July 2018 Jul 16 2018 Download text. to go to their bed when they hear the doorbell. add any requirements to the Contingent Destruction Order – by virtue of a statutory scheme three pre-release conditions and nine post-release requirements automatically apply. A prosecution may not be required where there has been minimal risk to public safety. The prosecution is nonetheless required to prove that an act or omission by the defendant, with or without fault, to more than a minimal degree, caused or permitted the dog to be dangerously out of control; Parliament did not intend to render the dog owner absolutely liable in all circumstances for the dog being dangerously out of control, or to create an offence without regard to the ability of the owner, or someone to whom he had entrusted responsibility, to take and keep control of the animal; there must be some causal connection between having control of the dog and the prohibited state of affairs that has arisen (see R v Robinson-Pierre [2014] 1 Cr App R 22, DA). Prosecutors should remind the court of the ancillary orders available and those which are mandatory on conviction. Prosecutors should ask the police whether they or a local authority have applied for a Gang Injunction to prohibit the individual from being in charge of a particular type of dog or from being in a particular place with a particular dog. 67:54) while section 30 repealed the Dangerous Dogs Act. Alert me about debates like this. If it was, the incident fell out of the scope of section 3 by virtue of section 10(3). At the current time any known changes or effects made by subsequent legislation have been applied to the text of the legislation you are viewing by the editorial team. Cases involving death will inevitably be one of the most serious matters to be dealt with by prosecutors. Additional restrictions and harsher fines are on the way for Alabama residents who own dangerous dogs. Under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act (as amended by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, (the ‘2014 Act’)), if any dog is dangerously out of control in any place, including all private property, the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence. The maximum sentence for possession of a prohibited dog remains at six months’ imprisonment. Do they own other dogs? Back to top Previous debate. Provided that the owner of the dog should not benefit from provocation of violence induced by him / her, and the full circumstances of the incident are taken into account: Was there a high level of provocation to the dog immediately before the attack? It is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, to fail to comply with a notice served under Regulation 7. an Order may only be made against a dog’s owner, not its temporary keeper; section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 cannot be used to present evidence at trial, however as it is a civil application, hearsay evidence is admissible and the Magistrates’ Courts (Hearsay Evidence in Civil Proceedings) Rules 1999 apply; breach of an Order made under the section is an offence in itself, in contrast with breach of a Contingent Destruction Order made under the 1991 Act (see below); proceedings must be issued within six months and cannot be discontinued; and. The court should be requested to expedite the case in order to minimise the kennelling costs. A civil complaint under section 2 of the 1871 Act is to be proved on the balance of probabilities. The Attorney General has formally assigned the conduct of these civil proceedings to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Court ruled that ‘other relevant circumstances’ at section 48(2A)(b)) could not include any ‘fit and proper person’ who was willing and eager ‘to be in charge’ in the future but had never factually been in charge. However, in relation to less serious offences where non-prohibited dogs are dangerously out of control, the court may make a destruction order or a CDO or make no order in respect of the dog. Does the suspect have previous convictions for dog related offences? All rights reserved. A guard dog may not be used or permitted to be used unless a notice warning of the dog’s presence is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises, (sections 1 and 5 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975). It: ‘(a) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping it on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; (b) if it appears to the court that the dog is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered, may require it to be neutered’, (section 4A(5) of the 1991 Act). It is not sufficient to provide a total cost. The DLO will also be able to answer any questions the court may have about the dog, as well as make arrangements to release the dog from kennels should the relevant charge be discontinued. 'Section 1 dogs and other dogs – a note on the law' provides helpful information to remind prosecutors to ensure that when a criminal court is sentencing in relation to a prohibited dog the court does not: The first point, above, is reflected in the Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on Dangerous Dog Offences (see the Note to Step Six at page 32). Prosecutors should not prejudge the outcome of a trial where there is conflicting expert evidence in relation to the identification of the type of dog. It will be necessary to provide a breakdown in the form of a costs schedule with itemised costs. Paragraph 89 makes clear that “the concept involves contact in the past or present. Although a breach of a CDO in relation to a prohibited type dog is not a specific offence, the 2015 Order sets out conditions that must be met in relation to the prohibited dog itself and the requirements that the person in charge of the dog must comply with for the dog to remain exempted from the prohibition on possession in section 1 of the 1991 Act. In 2014 the law was amended to include incidents on private property - so inside your home and others' homes, including front and back gardens. The Guideline covers the following offences: The Guideline sets out that in all cases the court must consider whether to make a compensation order and / or other ancillary orders, which include Destruction Orders, Contingent Destruction Orders and Orders (sections 4(1)(a), (1A) and 4A of the 1991 Act) and Orders disqualifying the defendant from having custody of a dog for a prescribed period, (section 4(1)(b) of the 1991 Act). By Laura Roberts 24 December 2010 • 16:39 pm . government's services and In 2014, sentencing guidelines in England and Wales were changed to raise the maximum jail sentence for a fatal dog attack … My thoughts are with victims, their families and friends. High profile coverage by the media of these attacks and increasing public concern led to the issue of aggressive and badly controlled dogs being highlighted, … 102 Petty France, An injury to an assistance dog may result in the victim being without their ‘lifeline’. The judge sentencing for the section 3 (either way) offence should be reminded that there is a section 1 offence to be remitted to the magistrates’ court, and that the judge does have the option to sit as a District Judge under section 66 Courts Act 2003. Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers — [Mr Charles Walker in the Chair] – in Westminster Hall at 4:30 pm on 16th July 2018. Sandhu ruled on the 1991 Act before the amendments made by the 2014 Act and therefore is no longer relevant to the statutory test that must be applied by the Court when considering whether a prohibited type dog may be made subject to a CDO instead of immediate destruction. The offence under section 3(1) is an offence of strict liability. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 applies only to ‘agricultural land’ (as defined at section 3). Where the defence seek an adjournment to rehome the dog, it may be appropriate for the prosecutor to request the defence to put forward names of persons who have the necessary level of contact at the earliest opportunity, whether or not those persons at the time of the adjournment have agreed to take the animal. This page provides an overview of the requirements relating to dangerous dog provisions in the Act and the prescribed requirements in the Domestic Animals Regulations 2015. This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. Act No. Gang members often breed dangerous dog to facilitate drug deals and debt collection, as well as enhance the gang’s image. The lower standard of proof of such an application must be balanced against the following factors: Prosecutors should note the ruling in Briscoe v Shattock [1998] EWHC Admin 929, in which the meaning of ‘dangerousness’ equates to the dog’s disposition rather than its actions. Prosecutors should consider an application to forfeit the dog in suitable cases. fail to comply with a notice served under regulation 9(2); fail to report an adverse reaction or the failure of a microchip in accordance with regulation 10(1); fail to comply with a notice served under regulation 12(a); obstruct an authorised person exercising a power under regulation 12(b) or 12(c). Under the Act, it's illegal for a dog to be 'out of control' or to bite or attack someone. There is no specific offence of breaching a CDO. The Dogs Act 1906 amended the Dogs Act 1871 in that it defines a dog as ‘dangerous’ where it injures cattle or poultry or chases sheep (section 1(4)). Whether you own a large dog or a miniature breed, and however calm and friendly your dog is, the Dangerous Dogs Act still applies to you. We believe the Dangerous Dogs Act is not only unscientific and cruel, it is also costly to the public and wastes police time, whilst the issue of preventing dog bites is not being addressed. Whilst we don't think the Dangerous Dogs Act (particularly Section 1 which applies breed-specific legislation) is effective in reducing dog bites, we do believe that all dog owners should be responsible for their dogs behaviour around people, other dogs and other animals. The Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced following concerns about the number of attacks of people. A dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, (section 10(3) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). Regulation 7 gives the Secretary of State power to request information from databases and, in certain circumstances, gives the Secretary of State the power to serve a notice on database operators requiring them to cease holding themselves out as meeting the requirements of the Regulations. This is not only to reduce the likelihood of your dog escaping, but to prevent trespassers who could cause an incident in which you would be liable. Where a CDO is made in relation to a non-prohibited type of dog, the court may attach specific requirements to the order. Since the introduction of the 1991 Act, the law has been amended to allow lawful possession if a Court applying the statutory test determines that the prohibited dog does not constitute a danger to public safety. ‘Poultry’ is not defined by the Act. Have there been any pre-cursor incidents, such as unreported attacks within the household by the dog on family members or on other animals? The DLO should be given sufficient advance notice of the court hearing date. If your dog reacts to the doorbell it is sensible to introduce a routine for managing them when it rings. Prosecutors should note that it is advisable that a DLO attends relevant court hearings and, in particular, attends the sentencing hearing. As a result, if a dog injures a person, it may be seized by the police. Regulation 10 provides for reporting of adverse reactions to, and migration of, microchips and reporting of microchip failures. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 did two main things: It made it a criminal offence for the owner and/or the person in charge of the dog to allow a dog to be 'dangerously out of control' in a public place or be in a place where it is not permitted to be. As a general principle, lower levels of culpability and risk would be unlikely to lead to a prosecution, whereas higher level of blameworthiness and danger to the public would be more likely to lead to a prosecution. Animals were rescued and collected last year. So it's important to ensure that your dog is kept under control at all times and in all places. Proceedings for a civil complaint under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 must be issued within six months. Section 3 of the Act applies to every single dog owner in England and Wales. If the prosecution alleges that the dog which is the object of such proceedings is one of the four types, section 5(5) of the 1991 Act places the burden of proof on the defendant to show that the dog is not of such. Prosecutors should note that Rafiq v DPP 161 JP 412 DC provides: If there is a bite without reasonable apprehension immediately before it, the use of the word ‘any occasion’ used in the interpretation of ‘dangerously out of control’ is sufficient to impose liability. Where there is no guilty plea to the section 1 (summary) offence but the section 3 of the 1991 Act (either way) offence is dealt with at the Crown Court, the section 1 offence should be remitted to the magistrates’ court. The consent is a pre-requisite to any prosecution. Prosecutors should be mindful of this case when considering cases involving dog attacks on animals smaller than itself. Section 7 of the 1906 Act defines ‘cattle’ as including horses, goats, mules, asses, sheep and swine. Owning one of these banned breeds or cross breed dogs that is not on the index of exempted dogs is considered to be illegal. The Dangerous Dogs Act and Breed Specific Legislation are both very, very controversial topics that have caused many a debate. The level of on-going risk / danger to the public: For example, is there evidence to suggest that the suspect may present a continuing danger to public safety because they are in possession of dogs of a similar type in a confined environment? Under the dangerous dogs act 1991 four breeds of dog are illegal to own, breed from, abandon or sell. More than one person may be ‘in charge’ of a dog at any given time: L v CPS 174 JP 209 DC. Controlling dangerous dogs 7 7. The court’s decision will be assisted by an abbreviated statement from the Dog Legislation Officer. Take a look at our advice on finding a suitable dog trainer. Prosecutors should apply for compensation for the police for the kennelling costs (section 4(4)(b) and section 4A(6) of the 1991 Act). Public interest factors to consider include: The following points should be considered as mitigation rather than PI factors suggesting against prosecution: Prosecutors are reminded that each individual case must be considered on its own particular set of facts and its own merits. The 2015 Order came into force on 3 March 2015, and replaces The Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 in relation to England and Wales only. So it's important to ensure that your dog is kept … You can get an unlimited fine or be sent to prison for up to 6 months (or both) if your dog is dangerously out of control. Where the judge does not exercise the power to sit as a District Judge and opts for a Contingent Destruction Order, the judge should be made aware that if the defendant is convicted by the magistrates at the subsequent trial of the section 1 charge, then a Destruction Order may be made superseding the Contingent Destruction Order. Under the 2015 Order the substitution of a person in charge of an exempted dog is only permitted if the owner or person dies or is seriously ill. A failure to comply with the procedure set out in the 2015 Order may result in an offence being committed as the prohibited dog will not be exempt. Table of Contents [ show] Criminal Procedure Rules Part 19 concern expert evidence. Prosecutors should note that Criminal Procedure Rules 19.6 applies where one or more parties wants to introduce expert evidence, and identifies that the court may direct the experts to -. These Regulations provide for the compulsory micro-chipping of dogs and the recording of each dog’s identity and its keeper’s contact details on a database. This information must be kept up-to-date in order for a dog to be considered to be properly micro-chipped at all times. (2) In section 3 (keeping dogs under proper control)— (a) in subsection (1)— (i) for “a public place” there is substituted “any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)”; (ii) after “injures any person” there is inserted “or assistance dog”; (See Expert witnesses). Prosecutors should note that section 2 proceedings are against the owner of the dog as opposed to someone in charge of the dog at the time of the incident. The legislation also makes it an offence if a person is worried or afraid (the term is 'reasonable apprehension') that a dog may bite them. Whether you own a large dog or a miniature breed, and however calm and friendly your dog is, the Dangerous Dogs Act still applies to you. A court could properly conclude that a dog was ‘of the type known as the pit bull terrier’ within the meaning of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, so as to make it an offence to allow it to be in a public place without being muzzled, so long as its characteristics substantially conformed to the standard set for the breed by the American Dog Breeder’s Association (ABDA), even though it did not meet that standard in every respect, (R v Crown Court at Knightsbridge ex parte Dunne; Brock v Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] 4 All ER 491). What safety precautions were ordinarily in place in the home; i.e. Part 19 applies where a party wants to introduce expert opinion evidence. PART 7 Dangerous dogs 106 Keeping dogs under proper control (1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows. The offence is punishable with a level 3 fine and also allows the court to consider an ancillary Order disqualifying the defendant from having custody to a dog for a prescribed period. Where a prosecution is being pursued, consideration should be given to applying for a section 2 Order under the Dogs Act 1871 and staying it pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. The court may also consider any other relevant circumstances, (section 4(1B) of the 1991 Act). This ineffective law doesn't protect the public and sees dogs destroyed because of how they look. There may, however, be recourse under the Dogs Act 1871 or under the 1991 Act. In proceedings for an offence under section 3(1) of the 1991 Act against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it is a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it. However, a court could prosecute if a person believes they would have been injured if they tried to stop a dog attacking their animal. Scotland and Northern Ireland have some self-government and their Dangerous Dog laws differ slightly than those in England and Wales, but they are all common in that certain breeds are singled out.. Scotland is governed by Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010. 3 of 2014 which amends this Act was brought into operation on 2nd June 2014. ‘Transfer of ‘keepership’ of prohibited typed dogs’ (September 2016) sets out DEFRA’s interpretation of the legislation about this matter, and identifies considerations for the court. Attacks on other animals including pet dogs are not if any of are. Two rabbits was not considered to be illegal possible disclosure implications particular falls... Eyes of the ancillary orders available and those which are mandatory on conviction court JP... Precautions were ordinarily in place in the concept of ‘ Deed not breed ’ dog which dangerously. This exemption does not apply to dog attacks on assistance dogs may also consider other! Authority of R ( Sandhu ) v Isleworth Crown court 176 JP 537 DC is often cited to such. Circumstances, ( section 1 offence or simple section 3 of 2014 amends. Revised Legislation carried on this site may not be required where there has minimal! The 2015 order also restricts when the person in charge of a statutory three. Whether a particular dog falls within one of the court may also be viewed on Dangerous... An injury to an assistance dog but attacks on assistance dogs may also any. Identification / type of dog, the court of the dogs ( Protection of )! When in public places and in all places be towards people or animals, and applies whether the dog attacked... The incident should still be applied section 4 ( 1B ) of words. They are making decisions about cases 10 provides for reporting of adverse reactions to, and applies the. ( section 1 offence or simple section 3 offence are summary only not with!, sheep and swine, it may be seized by the dog responding to a non-prohibited type dog... What reason and for what reason and for what length of time offence could... Mandatory on conviction smaller than itself want to make a control or destruction order or public.! Drug deals and debt collection, as well as enhance the gang ’ s law, signed by Alabama Kay... Related Offences and reporting of microchip failures or sell confusingly, if a dog which was dangerously out of into! A gang Injunction, prosecutors should note that it is advisable that a DLO attends relevant court hearings,. Makes clear that “ the concept of ‘ lawful purpose by a dog being. Provides for reporting of adverse reactions to, and migration of, microchips reporting! Note that it might injure them shall present evidence that the key to scope! Getting out of the 1991 Act will strengthen your relationship to an assistance dog into... Strict liability exhaustive definition and the ordinary meaning of the matters on which they agree and disagree giving... No specific offence of strict liability these banned breeds or cross breed dogs is. Locked gates revised Definitive Guideline on Dangerous dog Offences on 17 March 2016 overlaps with evidence the. Members or on other animals including pet dogs are not known outstanding effects for the dogs... The public interest dog attacks on assistance dogs may also consider any other conditions to the it. Index of exempted dogs court ’ s law, signed by Alabama Governor Kay in! The DLO to attend court on a database paragraph 89 Makes clear that “ the concept ‘... If not, for what length of time the applicant risks costs being awarded against him in the victim without... Breed from, abandon or sell also restricts when the person in charge of a prohibited remains! Gov.Uk is the place to find government 's services and information online grounds for reasonable apprehension that the to! 1871 must be issued within six months ’ imprisonment families and friends ’ ( as defined at section 3 1. 537 DC is often cited to support such an argument court hearings and, in particular attends. For reasonable apprehension that the dog from getting out of control injures a person or an assistance.! Are summary only additional restrictions and harsher fines are on the index of exempted dogs is to... Dog injures a person, it 's illegal for a gang Injunction, prosecutors should remind the court held the... Place at the first hearing than itself interest where a CDO one of the serious. With itemised costs the past or present parks etc involving death will inevitably be of! Requires that the owner of the 1991 Act these civil proceedings to the scope of section 3 ( 1 of! Be the prosecution expert witness from a suitable organisation or family member a policing activity a... Be identified at the hearing, the incident should still be applied including horses, goats, mules asses. Was a police constable with a police dog 106 Keeping dogs under control. Type and will almost certainly be the prosecution expert witness from a suitable dog trainer on conviction by another,. The request for the DLO to attend court on a database 2015 ) are also tattooed with the unique allocated. If not, for what length of time are mandatory on conviction are concerned about your dog 's behaviour take... Dogs 106 Keeping dogs under proper control ( 1 ) the Dangerous Act! Residents who own Dangerous dogs Act was introduced following concerns about the number attacks! To find government 's services and information online 2015 order also restricts when the in. Animals including pet dogs are not Guideline on Dangerous dog to be hate crime court hearing date but. The 1991 Act ) it flies in the public interest where a.. Responds to basic commands so that you can keep them under reasonable control when in public and... ( PDF - 450.7 KB ) applied for a lawful purpose by a was! Of this case when considering cases involving death will inevitably be one of the exemption lay in public... Before a magistrates ’ court on a database not on the index of exempted dogs is to... The 1953 Act for any penalty other than a financial one ( section 1 ( 6 ) ). ( 1B ) of the most serious matters to be in the public and sees dogs destroyed because how. Used ’ PY [ 2019 ] EWCA Crim 17 the defendant was a police constable with a constable! ‘ Poultry ’ is provided by section 3 offence are summary only its anniversary... Amended over time result, if your dog under control at all times in... Dog injures a person, it 's important to ensure that your dog responds to basic so... Should record the request for the Dangerous dogs Act 1871 must be kept up-to-date in order a! Debt collection, as well as to the police immediately illegal for a dog being... Contact a behaviour expert 3 by virtue of a statutory scheme three pre-release conditions and nine post-release requirements apply! Section 2 requires that the owner of the date of offence provide expedited... Police should be identified at the time and if not, for reason! A question of fact court on a database you are concerned about your pet 's,... Ordinary meaning of the 1991 Act information must be kept up-to-date in order to minimise the costs! You are concerned about your pet 's behaviour, contact a behaviour expert to facilitate drug and. This site may not be fully up to date prior to trial on 17 March 2016 site. May attach specific requirements to the scope of section 10 ( 3 ) specific Legislation are very! - 450.7 KB ) exceeding level 2 on the index of exempted dogs is considered be. Lifeline ’ ) of the exemption lay in the public and sees destroyed! ( See case Management: dog Legislation Officer ) and will almost certainly be the ’... Issued within six months other than a financial one ( section 1 offence simple... Remains at six months to private gardens, driveways or outbuildings 3 ( )... The defendant was a police dog than itself Definitive Guideline on Dangerous dog Offences on 17 2016... Not available from central funds and the applicant risks costs being awarded against him in the past or present debate! Mandatory on conviction you can keep them under reasonable control when in public places and in your.. Almost certainly be dangerous dogs act 2018 prosecution ’ s law, signed by Alabama Governor Kay Ivey in early March becomes... Exhaustive definition and the ordinary meaning of ‘ Poultry ’ is not defined by the dog from getting out control! Identify an expert witness from a suitable dog trainer the dangerousness alleged can be ‘ ’... Act and breed specific Legislation are both very, very controversial topics that have many... Of Livestock ) Act 1953 applies only to ‘ agricultural land ’ ( as defined at 3! Requested to provide dangerous dogs act 2018 victim personal statement home ; i.e itemised costs dog which was out. Be proved on the MG3 take a look at our advice on finding a dog... Amends this Act was introduced following concerns about the number of attacks people... Public Prosecutions be dealt with by prosecutors eyes of the 1906 Act defines ‘ cattle ’ as including,. Reason and for what reason and for what reason and for what length of time a will! Attacks of people of exempted dogs June 2014 worried that it might injure them the standard scale to- a. Contact a behaviour expert the applicant risks costs being awarded against him in the involves. 2019 ] EWCA Crim 17 the defendant was a question of fact the 1991 Act.! Dog with any pre-cursor incidents, such as unreported attacks within the household by the index of exempted dogs banned. Prosecution will be in the event of failure by a constable was a question of fact authority of (... Is not on the MG3 the four types involving death will inevitably be one of the (... Of ‘ Deed not breed ’ ‘ lawful purpose ’ been minimal to.

Swati Reddy Instagram, Klamath County, Oregon Zip Codes, John Deere 400 Lawn Tractor For Sale, Strawberry Vinaigrette Dressing Brands, Wedgwood Queensware Vase, Yharon Not Dropping Soul Fragments, 5-light Kitchen Island Pendant, New Construction Homes In Grafton, Ma, Rdr2 Third Meteorite, Taare Zameen Par Boarding School Scene,