Amendment to adjust the DDA

The Home Office issued a news release on the 26th February which stated that it was to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA).

The Amendment Bill was introduced by Roger Gale MP into the Commons where it passed several readings just before Parliament resolved for the General Election on the 1st May. The DDA Amendment Act 1997 came into force on the 8th of June 1997.

The mandatory destruction order for dogs found guilty by the Courts of resembling a ‘type’ has been removed. The Court will now have the option to order the dog to be registered (but this is weighted towards destruction) if it is satisfied that -

1(a) that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety; and

(b) where the dog was born before 30th November 1991 and is subject to the prohibition in section 1(3) above, that there is a good reason why the dog has not been exempted from that prohibition.

Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 3(1) or section 3(3) the court may order that, unless the owner of the dog keeps it under proper control, the dog shall be destroyed and that an order may-

(a) specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; and

(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.

Precisely how this would operate in the Courts remains to be discovered, it is hoped that the dogs presently incarcerated, might if found guilty be registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs and subsequently live a drastically reduced lifestyle, which is one step forward from being killed and returned in a plastic bin liner.

Burden of proof:

Unfortunately the Amendment does not mention the restoration of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVED GUILTY and the onus is still on the owner to prove their innocence.

NO Bail:

Dogs will still have to survive the incarceration period away from their family homes whilst awaiting a court hearing, which as we have seen can take a very long time.

The forgotten mongrels

There is still no escape for the thousands of dogs in this country which fall into the wide category of ‘type’.

How will our helplines and countless other rescues around the country now advise the worried owners of potential victims, what should they do?

The Amendment leaves them some alternatives:

Options:

- Carry on as normal, anxious and fearing for your dogs future welfare, living on a knifes edge.

- Take your friendly companion to the vets and end the misery

- Approach your local authority and ask to be prosecuted, offer no defence, gratefully receive your criminal record and depending on the future definition of what the courts will consider constitutes a ‘danger to public safety’ the Judge will hopefully order your dog to be placed on the Index.

Trevor Cooper (solicitor) had not forgotten this huge problem and put forward a suggestion to add a new clause into the Amendment Bill to allow any dog owner to make their own application to the Court for late registration of their dog. In effect an owner-led application to the Court for people who are hiding their dogs through fear.
The Government were not prepared to make any concessions or even discuss it and there was no time allocated to debate any further changes.

Section 5 of the Amendment Act is a cause for celebration as it refers to those dogs already under court destruction orders, we know of many dogs awaiting further proceedings and the Amendment states:

(1) This Act shall apply in relation to cases where proceedings have been instituted before, as well as after, the commencement of this Act.

(2) In a case where, before the commencement of this Act

(a) the court has ordered the destruction of a dog in respect of which an offence under section 1. or an aggravated offence under section 3(1) or (3), of the 1991 Act has been committed, but

(b) the dog has not been destroyed, that destruction order shall cease to have effect and the case shall be remitted to the court for reconsideration.

These changes will hopefully help those dogs which are already incarcerated, but we are still left with draconian legislation. Dogs will still be seized from their owners and taken to ‘secret’ locations and held for months. It is still a CRIMINAL offence to simply own a crossbreed which someone may accuse of being a ‘type’ or guilty of a minor offence under Section 3 of the Act. What condition will these dogs continue to be returned in ? With no veterinary records, sores, teeth worn to the gums and other problems both mental and physical. If someone accused you of owning a dangerous dog, a dog said to be a danger around people and to be muzzled and leashed for the rest of its life, how would you feel? Is it acceptable? We do not think it is and will continue to battle for innocent dogs. Without the EDDR who else can many of these dogs depend on for certain?

The Amendment was rushed through Parliament just in time for the General Election because considerable pressure had been cast on the Government to change the Act, thanks to our members, supporters and other organisations.

Many involved parties were not given the opportunity to properly review the Governments minor change.

Those who are concerned with the weekly extensive problems which a canine witch-hunt has generated will realize that we have many more hills to climb for innocent dogs before we can truly celebrate and disregard the DDA.