Dangerous Dogs Act (as amended) - Information

Identification of Prohibited Dogs:

With no known cases involving three of the prohibited breeds, the Act is in reality aimed at the ‘type of dog known as a pit bull terrier’.

The Act doesn't refer to the ‘American Pit Bull Terrier’ and uses the word ‘type’, a breed not recognised by the Government.  

What wasn't’t initially explained was how the word ‘type’ should be interpreted. No governmental guidelines to ease the confusion led to frequent lengthy legal hearings debating the finer points of what was and what was not a dog of the ‘type’.

In 1993 the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court determined the legal definition of the word ‘type’. In the landmark case of Dunne and Brock Their Lordships, Justice Glidewell and Justice Cresswell stated:

“That a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”.

For the legal definition of a type known as a pit bull terrier refer to R v Crown Court at Knightsbridge ex p Dunne [1993] 4 All ER 491, Brock V DPP [1993]

The floodgates were open, any dog, regardless of its parentage, could be of the 'type', behaviour was relevant, but not conclusive. Countless pet dogs have suffered and lost their lives due to the draconian nature of the law, a law in the words of one senior Judge "designed to promote death".

The American Dog Breeders Association's (ADBA) Basis of Conformation for the American Pit Bull Terrier, was and still is used as the 'yardstick' for identification in the courts.

DEFRA have issued guidance on the identification of unlawful dogs.

Presently there is no DNA test available; it is a dog's physical attributes-conformation which largely determines its fate, the law doesn't apply only to 'pit bull terriers' any cross-breed or mongrel can fit the description and often do.

Burden of Proof:

Under Section One the Act, the ‘burden of proof’ is reversed - this means that it is up to the dog’s owner to prove that their dog is not of the ‘type’, rather than the prosecution prove that it is.

If for example a police officer alleges that a dog is a pit bull terrier type then it is assumed it is so, until the defence proves it is not.

It had been challenged in the case of Bates at the High Court and with the European Commission, but upheld. What this means for the ordinary pet owner, is that an accusation that a dog is a prohibited type of dog needs only to be made, it is then up to the dog’s owner to prove otherwise.

Making it even more difficult for pet dog owners in a court of law to prove their innocence when charged with a criminal offence. There is no automatic 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Whether the burden of proof is reversed under section 4b applications is questionable.

See the DEFRA Leaflet-2008

Legislation:

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997

See Legal Judgments for further definitions.

For Northern Ireland legislation see the:

The Dangerous Dogs Act (Northern Ireland) order 1991

Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001

The information contained here does not constitute legal advice in and of itself. You must contact a Solicitor for advice before acting upon anything that you read on this web site.

For help with finding a solicitor who has experience with canine legislation - please contact us.

Please Visit Our Dog Law Section Here