Dogs & The Law

Until 1991, owners had civil but not criminal responsibility for what their dogs did. The Dogs Act 1871 allows a complaint to be made against the owner if his or her dog is dangerously out of control. This old, tried and tested law was generally applied with discretion so that broadly speaking, a dog was .allowed one bite.

That relatively dog-friendly situation in the courts changed dramatically with introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991 by the then Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker. The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) makes owners responsible for what their dogs do under criminal law. A sense of fear, even terror was introduced with this change to the dog-owning culture. In the first year or two of the Act, the Section 1 provisions (which outlaws dogs of four named breeds) was rigorously enforced in London and certain other regions of the UK, but not in others. Literally thousands of well-behaved dogs that may or may not have been Pit Bulls (one of the named four breeds), long-legged Staffordshires and crosses between such breeds as Boxers and Labradors, Ridgebacks and Staffies were seized and held in an anonymous limbo, until matters were brought before the courts six months, even two years after seizure. The onus was then upon the owner of the dog to prove that it was not of the .type known as the American Pit Bull Terrier.

An important judgement in the case of Dunne and Brock was delivered by the Divisional Court (ie an Appeal), which ruled that the relevant breed standard for assessing whether a dog is or is not .of the type. should be that provided by the American Dog Breeders. Association (ADBA). Unfortunately, since 1991 there have been three revisions of the ADBA standard, and the current version can be found on their website (www.adbadog.com).

The process of breed identification is still a largely subjective area and places a tough burden of proof upon the owner of a dog which has been seized under the Section 1 provisions. Often they will be up against a prosecution .expert., perhaps a veterinary surgeon, who has a vested interest in ensuring a conviction. A small pool of experts is available to the defence, such as retired veterinary surgeon Trevor Turner MRCVS or Roger Mugford who being self-employed, is prepared to drop tools and spend hours, sometimes days in court arguing about tiny points of canine anatomy.

After the initial enthusiasm to make the Section 1 1991 provisions work (and they did not), seizures of .typey. dogs diminished almost to zero. Those of us in the world of dogs thought that this section about Pit Bull Terriers had been consigned to the legal scrapheap. Unfortunately, a tragic incident in Liverpool in January 2007 resurrected the irrational hatred of these Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Pit Bull Terrier types, and there has been a new spate of seizures in the Merseyside and Greater Manchester areas, and in Northern Ireland. Exactly the same bizarre issues are again being tested in the courts as in the early years of the 1990s.

A particularly unpleasant recent twist has been the offer to owners of 'typey' dogs of an 'amnesty' much like that offered to people with guns or knives. "Hand over your pet, and we'll ask no questions and we won't prosecute." These amnesties have been organised without proper information about what becomes of the poor dogs, and the truth is that they get to be killed.

The way forward is for owners to closely question the legalities of actions by the police or perhaps by the local authority dog warden service. Who says that their dog is of the "type known as the American Pit Bull Terrier"? What is their competence? If you can prove that your dog is of a different breed (perhaps on the basis of DNA evidence, or certain proof of parentage), then the owner has a defence that may persuade the court that the authorities were wrong to have seized the dog.

Even if a dog is found to be of the type known as the Pit Bull Terrier by the courts, it can still be placed upon the .Register of Exempt Dogs., be microchipped, neutered, obliged to wear a muzzle and be kept on a lead in public places (which includes a motor vehicle). At least the dog gets to keep his life, but at some cost to his liberty and to the owner.s purse. The insanity of this legislation is that it punishes the breed but not the deed. Find out more about this breed specific legislation by visiting the website DeedNotBreed.

Where the deed is that the dog was .dangerously out of control., Section 3 provisions of the DDA apply. The definition of 'dangerously out of control' can be found in Section 10 of the Act, and merely causing 'reasonable apprehension' in somebody's mind that a dog may be dangerous is sufficient for an offence to be proven. In practice, the 1991 Section 3 provisions are more usually applied when there has been an injury, the so-called aggravated offence. An injury may not necessarily be from a dog bite and need not be serious. Thus, a dog accidentally crashing into somebody when running in a park or woods will constitute being dangerously out of control if there was some major or minor consequential injury to the person. A dog may jump up in friendly greeting of a stranger, and again the aggravated offence occurs if there is a mere scratch upon the complainant.

Until 1997, proof of an aggravated offence (ie an injury), as also that a dog was of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier, meant automatic destruction or killing of the dog. In June 1997, an amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act was introduced, crafted by specialist solicitor Trevor Cooper. Thankfully, this allows a dog belonging to someone convicted of having a Pit Bull to be placed upon the Register of Exempt Dogs. Dogs convicted of being .dangerously out of control. and causing an injury can now have special measures ordered by the court, such as that it always be kept on a lead, be muzzled, be neutered, be trained by a behaviour specialist and so on.

Nowadays in the courts, there is generally a willingness by magistrates to not order destruction of a dog unless the circumstances are such that there might be a recurrence, or that the injuries were particularly severe. The special measures that may be ordered by the court under both the 1871 Dogs Act (ie civil) or the Dangerous Dogs Act (ie criminal) are wide-ranging, and are usually best advised to the court by a behavioural expert. An .expert. in the context of courts should be someone with academic qualifications, for instance a veterinary surgeon or a behaviour specialist with one or more relevant degrees.

In my own practice, I and my veterinary colleagues receive 4-5 new instructions each week regarding dogs that have offended the law. In 2002, I even defended the Princess Royal and Dottie, her wonderful Bull Terrier, who caused an incident (due to her playful behaviour) in Windsor Great Park. This work is emotionally draining, with cliff hanging anxiety about whether or not a much-loved family pet will or will not be ordered destroyed.

There are other statutes or laws of which dog owners should be aware. If a dog causes an injury to somebody in any situation and under any circumstances, the owner may be liable to pay compensation in a civil action brought under the Animals Act, 1971. The owner is also liable for his dog's action under the common law of negligence. These are all very good reasons to ensure that you have liability insurance either under your household policy or from a reputable pet insurance company. You will need a solicitor to represent you in court, unless you are a very competent and confident person. Legal aid for representation (including paying for assistance from an expert) may be forthcoming for cases brought under the 1991 DDA, but not civil actions under the Dogs Act, 1871. That is why it is so vital that all dog owners have comprehensive insurance cover, which should cover court fees and compensation claims brought under any of the legislation mentioned in this article. Finally, dogs that chase sheep or other farm livestock are liable to have their owners prosecuted under The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act, 1953, and risk being shot by an angry farmer. This is another good reason to ensure that your dog is well trained and under control, to the extent that he will always obey a recall command (see Training Tips).

At our Animal Behaviour Centre, we have specially trained geese, sheep, cows, and horses which allow us to train puppies to be respectful of farm animals. Of course, teaching adult dogs not to chase livestock can be more difficult, but the whole process has been revolutionised by introduction of the Pavlov radio-controlled training system. There are no circumstances in which a radio-controlled electric shock collar should be employed to deter livestock chasing. The equipment is much in vogue in the United States and there are a few disreputable dog trainers who still employ such equipment in the UK. Caring owners beware of such trainers, because the usual outcome of shocking your dog will probably not be to your liking. Such trainers will not be allowed advertising space on this website (see Find Trainer).