Endangered Dogs Defence and Rescue

Information, Education & Advice - helping dogs in need

Dog Law - A Dog Owner's Guide:

There are a wide variety of laws currently applicable to dogs and their owners, here we take a look at some, but not all, of those currently in force in England & Wales and how they affect dog owners.

Where possible we have provided links to similiar legislation affecting Scotland and Northern Ireland.

For information relating to prohibited dogs - the breed specific component of the Dangerous Dogs Act Legislation - please click here.

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 website.

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

Came into force on the 27th March 2007 in Wales and the 6th April 2007 in England. The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 came into force in October 2006. The legislation does not apply to Northern Ireland – they are consulting on their own version.

Section 9 – Duty of Care: The Acts introduce a new idea – the ‘duty of care’, dog owners are now legally obliged to ensure the welfare of dogs in their care.

Law enforcement agencies now have the power to take action to prevent animal suffering before it happens.

An offence is committed if dog owners don’t take such steps, as are reasonable in all the circumstances, to ensure that the needs of an animal, for which you are responsible, are met.

The owner, or person looking after a dog, must make sure that their dog has the following;

A suitable environment (where the dog lives)

A suitable diet (including water)

Is able to exhibit normal behaviour patterns

Is protected from pain, suffering, injury and disease

Is housed with, or apart from, other animals.

As someone responsible for a dog, who has failed this duty of care, you could receive an ‘Improvement Notice’ detailing what needs to be done within a specified time frame; this would be as an alternative to prosecution.

The new law also increases to 16 the minimum age at which a person can buy an animal.

The new law bans tail docking; there is an exemption for working dogs-which is defined in the Act.

Anyone who is cruel to an animal, or does not provide for its welfare needs, may be banned from owning animals, fined up to £20,000 and/or sent to prison.

The Act has been designed to allow for secondary legislation and codes of practice to be brought in at later dates, following consultation.

This legislation replaces the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Unnecessary suffering is defined in Section 4(3) of the new Act, it includes when suffering could have reasonably been avoided or reduced. You can commit an offence if you cause unnecessary suffering by an act (or failure to act) or if you permit someone else to.

Part 6 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 relates to dogs and became law in April 2006.

Under this Act local authorities and parish councils in England and Wales have been given the powers to introduce new Dog Control Orders (DCO’s) in their own public areas. A DCO can be introduced after completing the procedures designated, which include consultation and notification in the local press.

Existing bye-laws will remain in force until revoked or replaced and new bye-laws can still be made as long as they relate to offences other than those shown below.

Areas of land which are ‘open to the air’ (it is open to the air if open on at least one side) and to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access, with or without payment, can be designated, some areas are exempted.

Open spaces, parks etc in your area could become subject to a dog control order, limiting your use as a dog owner.

You can be fined up to £1000 for breach of a dog control order or a fixed penalty may be offered as an alternative.

Dog owners will need to contact their local authority to see what dog control orders have been passed or are being proposed in their area.

The Kennel Club web site is detailing proposed local authority dog orders, please visit their web site for further news and information.

This is a civil (not criminal) complaint-although heard at a Magistrates’ Court, it therefore operates on a lower standard of proof - on a balance of probalities. It is important to note that the Act can be applied to both public and private places.

A complaint can be made to the Magistrates’ Court that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control. It is the dog’s owner who is proceeded against (as opposed to someone in charge of the dog at the time).

If it appears to the court that the dog is dangerous, the court may make an order directing the dog be kept under proper control by the owner, or destroyed.

The court can look at the dog’s general disposition, they may consider evidence including character evidence from a behaviourist who has examined your dog, your vet, neighbours, friends & family etc. If the dog has behaved dangerously on one occasion only - there might be a defence in that the incident is not sufficienlty exceptional to prove that the dog has a dangerous disposition or character.

Magistrates’ can make an order in any circumstances where they find a dog to be dangerous, they have discretion when deciding what to do.

The High Court (England & Wales QBD) ruling of Briscoe v Shattock in October 1998 held that a dog could be considered ‘dangerous’ and ‘not kept under proper control’ as defined by Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, when the only danger shown was to other dogs, not to humans.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 allows for appeals to the Crown Court against any Dogs Act 1871 s.2 order. It also gives additional powers to the magistrates under the Dogs Act 1871.

Section 3(5)(b) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 enables magistrates, to make an order under the 1871 Act, to specify the measures to be taken for keeping a dog under proper control – including muzzling, keeping on a lead and exclusion from specific places. An order to neuter a male dog can be made if it appears that the dog would be less dangerous if neutered.

The Court has no power to fine or order compensation, the owner if found guilty may have to pay costs. The applicant risks costs being awarded against him/her if failed.

The Police do not have powers under this Act to seize and detain a dog pending a legal hearing.

There is a time limit for proceedings - which must be laid at the Court within 6 months from the incident.

Under this law, Section 28, (except for Greater London area-see below) it is an offence for any person in any street to let an unmuzzled ferocious dog be at large, to the obstruction, annoyance, or danger of the residents or passengers.

It is also an offence to set on or to urge any dog or other animal to attack, worry, or put in fear in any person or animal. The Act defines the meaning of ‘street’ shall extend to and include any road, square, court, alley, thoroughfare (public road going from one place to another)or public passage.

Covering Greater London area - Section 54 refers to an offence being committed by any person, within the metropolitan police district, in any thoroughfare or public pace, who shall suffer to be at large any unmuzzled ferocious dog (no obstruction, annoyance or danger needs to have occurred).

It is also an offence to set on or urge any dog or other animal to attack, worry, or put in fear any person, horse or other animal.

Under this Act you could be held liable to pay compensation in a civil action brought, for any damage caused by your dog. Liability rests with the keeper – the person in possession/in control of a dog at the time it caused damage which could be different from the actual owner. If the person who has control of the animal is under 16 years of age, the head of the household in which that person lives will be accountable.

Keepers of dogs are liable for the damage caused by their dog if all the conditions in Section (2) are met and no defence under section (5) is given – section (5) sets out exceptions from liability.

It is highly advisable that all dog owners hold up to date comprehensive liability insurance to cover themselves. Legal Aid for hearings under the Dangerous Dogs Act (criminal) Section Three may be available, but not under civil actions, such as the Dogs Act 1871, insurance to cover court costs, legal representation, compensation claims etc needs to be included in your policy - are you covered?

Is criminal action which can be applied to any dog of any breed or type, in England & Wales. Section Three of the Act refers to the keeping of dogs under proper control.

It is an offence for a dog to be "dangerously out of control in a public place", a public place is defined under Section 10 of the Act. An additional offence is created under section 3(3) for private places where the dog is not permitted to be.

In the case of Fellowes v DPP 1993, the prosecution submitted that the garden path leading to the front door was a public place because any member of the public could use it. The Court held that the garden path leading to the front door is not a public place within Section 10 of the Act.

A separate ruling by Justice Waller and Lord Justice Rose made on February 25th 1992 held that the interior of a vehicle when on a public highway is, for the purposes of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, a public place (see the case of ‘Otis’, Great Dane crossbreed).

The definition given in the Act is that 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, whether or not it actually does so – an aggravated offence (more serious) will have been committed if the dog, whilst out of control, injures a person.

An injury doesn'’t have to be in the form of a dog bite, it could, forexample, be from a dog enthusiastically greeting someone and knocking them over, or jumping up and scratching a person’s leg, injury is classed as an aggravated offence and up to 1997 Amendment of the Act, the penalty for an ‘aggravated’ offence was (but is no longer) mandatory destruction of the dog.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was amended in 1997, giving Courts discretionary powers when sentencing.

A constable or an authorised officer of a local authority, may seize any dog in a public place which appears to him to be dangerously out of control.

A magistrate’s warrant may be issued authorising a constable to enter, search the premises and seize any dog (or other thing found) which is evidence of an offence under this Act.

Is there a time limit for proceedings?
If there was injury to a person, there is no time limit. If there was no injury to a person, then proceedings must be laid at the Court within 6 months.

There is no provision for ‘bail’ of the dog whilst awaiting a legal outcome. In some cases the Police will exercise their powers and seize a dog, in other cases the dog will remain at home pending a legal hearing.

The dog’s owner and if different, the person in charge of the dog at the relevant time, may both be liable. If the dog is owned/under the control of someone under the age of 16yrs, the head of the household is deemed responsible.

If found guilty in a court of law, the penalty for an aggravated (injury to a person caused) offence is a fine and/or imprisonment. If injury has been caused to a person, there is a presumption in favour of destruction – unless the owner can prove that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.

The alternative to a destruction order would be a Contingent Destruction Order – the dog will be destroyed unless it is kept under proper control, the Court can attach conditions to an order and may specify the measures to be taken to keep a dog under proper control, these could include muzzling, keeping the dog on a lead, excluding the dog from specific areas and neutering of a male dog, if it appears to the court that the dog may be less dangerous if neutered.

Past Home Office Circulars have advised that practioners be satisfied that the circumstances of the offence, including the gravity of the injuries caused, are so serious that the public interest requires a prosecution under Section Three of the DDA, rather than under one of the earlier statues. Home Office Circular 9/1994 states:

"Prosecuting authorities will wish to consider whether proceedings under one of these earlier statues would be preferable to using the 1991 Act in cases of lesser severity."

The number of prosecutions for an aggravated offence in the two years ('95, '96) prior to the DDA Amendment of 1997 was 480, in the two years following ('98, '99) this had increased to 880.

Only Section 1 of this law is in force. It is an offence to use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises, unless, a person (the handler), is present on the premises and the dog is under control at all times. If the handler is not present the dog must be secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.

A notice warning that a guard dog is present must be clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.

Part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 concerns the seizure of stray dogs and delivery of stray dogs to the police or local authority officer. This Act transfers the responsibility for dealing with stray dogs, from the Police to the Local Authority.

The Police currently still have a responsibility to accept and hold stray dogs taken to them by members of the public (expected to change), as laid down by the Dogs Act 1906 as amended.

Section 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2006 transfers all the responsibility for stray dogs from the Police to the Local Authority (e.g., the police will not accept a stray dog at the police station) - this section of the Act has not yet come into force.

Under the EPA 1990, an officer appointed by the Local Authority (e.g. the dog warden) is required to deal with stray dogs, the officer may seize and detain any dog which is believed to be a stray (if the dog is on private property, consent from the land owner needs to be obtained). The Act defines the meaning of a public place.

The Officer will then serve notice in writing to the owner of the dog if known, or serve on the person whose address is given on the collar, stating that the dog has been seized, where it is being kept; and that it will be liable to be disposed of if it is not claimed within seven clear days after the serving of the notice and the payment of any charges due.

Once a seized dog has been detained for seven clear days, after seizure or delivery of notice on the owner and the owner has not claimed the dog and paid the fees due, the officer may dispose of the dog;

The dog warden must keep a register of dogs seized; details to be recorded are given in the Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992. The register is available for public inspection, free of charge at a reasonable time. Dogs must also be properly fed and maintained whilst detained.

A dog may be destroyed within the statutory seven day period - if necessary to avoid further suffering on the advice of a veterinary surgeon.

And inform those in charge of where the dog was found. It is illegal to hold a found dog without reporting it first.

The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992 describes the procedure to be followed where a stray dog is found by a member of the public who wishes to keep it. Where a dog has been brought in to the Local Authority, the finder may (under section 150(2) of the EPA 1990, request to keep the dog. Details as specified in law will be recorded.

If allowed to retain the dog, the finder must keep the dog for at least 28 days, however, the original owner can still claim the return of the dog, after this time – The Act does not deal with the civil law on ownership, e.g. the finder of a dog who follows all the procedures does not automatically become the dog’s legal owner after a period of 28 days, a dispute over ownership could follow. This is explained in the DOE Circular 6/1992: Control of Stray Dogs.

A report conducted by GfK NOP on behalf of Dogs Trust, released August 2007, shows that 105,068 stray dogs were picked up in the UK last year, and 7,892 were destroyed.

Came into force on 1st April 1992, this order is enforced by local authority officers, not the police.

All dogs on the highway or in a public place must wear a collar with the name and address of the owner inscribed on the collar or on an identity tag attached to the collar.

Dog owners need to be aware that a name tag with just an inscribed telephone number would not be sufficient. There are some exceptions to this order, including dogs used for emergency rescue work and a dog registered with the Guide Dogs for the Blind, for full exemptions and details see the Control of Dogs Order 1992.

The Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 has been repealed by the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

This Act deals with criminal liability. A dog’s owner and any other person, who is in charge of the dog at the time, will be guilty of an offence if the dog worries livestock on any agricultural land.

The definition of ‘livestock’ includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses and poultry (domestic fowls, turkeys, geese or ducks).

Subsection 2c does not apply to a dog owned by, or in the charge of, the occupier of the field or enclosure or the owner of the sheep or a person authorised by either.

Police dogs, guide dogs, trained sheep dogs, working gun dogs and a pack of hounds are all exempt.

If at the time of the worrying, the livestock were trespassing and the dog is owned by, or in charge of, the occupier of that land (or a person authorised by the occupier) and the person did not cause the dog to attack the livestock, an offence is not committed.

The owner also has a defence if at the relevant time the dog was in charge of someone else who it was reasonably believed was a fit and proper person.

Under this Act, if a dog is found on any land and a police officer has reasonable cause to believe that the dog has been worrying livestock on that land, which appears to be agricultural land and, no person who admits to being the owner or in charge of the dog is present, then the police officer may seize the dog and detain it for the purpose of ascertaining who the owner is, until the owner claims the dog and pays all expenses incurred due to detention.

On obtaining a warrant the police are able to enter and search private premises in order to identify a dog.

Under Section 3 of the Animals Act 1971 (civil liability), where a dog causes damage by killing or injuring livestock, any person who is the keeper of the dog is liable for the damage, except as otherwise provided by this Act (Section 5. refers to exceptions from liability).

Section 9 of the Animals Act 1971, refers to the owner of livestock who kills or injures a dog worrying or about to worry livestock, when there are no other reasonable means of ending or preventing the worrying or where the dog that has been worrying has not left the vicinity, is not under the control of any person and there are no practicable means of ascertaining ownership.

Under the 1971 Animals Act the definition of ‘livestock’ is widened and also includes deer not in the wild state and pheasants, partridges and grouse if in captivity.

It is natural for dogs to bark, but excessive barking can cause a nuisance to neighbours, who can lodge a complaint with their local authority who will then have a duty to investigate the complaint. Points which may be considered would include the volume and length of time the barking continues for, as well as the times of day it occurs.

Local Authorities can issue a Noise Abatement Notice, if the situation wasn't resolved then a prosecution could follow, a fine could be imposed on the dog owner.

Responsible dog owners should be considerate of their neighbours and if they have a problem with a dog barking – seek advice to help solve this.

It doesn't take long for faeces to build up in the garden if not cleaned away each day, large amounts accumulated causes a nuisance, it smells and can attract flies etc, a complaint could be made to the council who will try to hopefully solve the problem informally. If not, then an abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 can be served. If the notice is not complied with, prosecution may follow.

Scotland - The Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003 applies to any public place. It is an offence for any person in charge of a dog to fail to remove and dispose of appropriately any excretement after the dog has fouled on any public place.

A fixed Penalty Notice can be isued. The Act lists a number of exemptions, including a blind person in charge of a dog that is being used for guidance. There is no exemption for children under the age of 16 years. For further details click the link above to the Act.

Under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, it is an offence for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on a designated road without the dog being held on a lead. ‘Designated road’ is defined in the Act.

When a dog is injured in an accident with a vehicle on a public road, the driver of the vehicle must stop for a length of time to enable any person entitled, to require the driver’s personal information. If this does not happen, the driver must report the accident to the police as soon as reasonably practicable, and in any case within 24 hours of the accident.

State that animals should not be removed or permitted to leave a vehicle when on the motorway, if a dog was to escape, or needed to be removed from a vehicle, it shall not go or remain on any part of the motorway – except the verge, where it must be held on a lead or otherwise kept under proper control. The police or a traffic sign can direct otherwise.

The Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 apply to England, Wales & Scotland.

A breeder producing more than five litters of puppies per year for sale is legally obliged to obtain a licence from their Local Authority.

The premises must be inspected by a Vet and a Local Authority Officer. The Local Authority will decide whether to grant a licence and will enforce the requirements of the Act.

Local Authorities have extended powers under the 1991 Act to obtain a warrant to enter any premises, excluding a private dwelling house, where it believes dog breeding business is ongoing.

Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill - Alex Neil is a Member of the Scottish Parliament (MSP) standing for Central Scotland. He has produced a proposal to 'modernise the law on dangerous dogs' and is asking for groups and individuals to contact him with their opinions, questions and comments regarding his proposal. Your dog may be affected! January 2008

Dogs & the Law - an article which looks at dogs and the law, reproduced here with permission from Dr. Roger Mugford at the Company of Animals. June 2007

Number of defendants prosecuted at magistrates courts and convicted at all courts for offences under the Dogs Act 1871 and Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by police force area, England and Wales 1997 Source: Crime and Criminal Justice Unit, Home Office © Parliamentary copyright 2001

Dog Law - A Dog Owner's Guide: