Proposal For New Dda

[Allie No Dots]

This is the proposal (in english not legal jargon!) for the DDASG for you to digest!

 

Objective for Future ‘Dangerous Dogs’ Legislation

By the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group

 

Introduction

 

The issue of dangerous dogs and protecting the public has been one that has posed a problem for legislators for many years. Legislation concerning this dates back to 1871 with the Dogs Act. This provides for any person to make a complaint to a Magistrate’s court that a dog is dangerous or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that the dog is dangerous and is not being kept under proper control then it may make an order for it to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed.

 

More recently the implementation of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended has had a significant effect on the welfare of some dogs, which have either been kept in kennels for many years or euthanased simply because of their breed or type. Additionally, it has not prevented a large number of dog attacks or reduced the number of Pit Bull Terrier type dogs in the UK. Statistics on dog attacks have not reduced since that Act was introduced and in fact, the number of hospitalisations is reported as having doubled.

 

For these reasons the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG), a wide-ranging group representing animal welfare, local authorities, police and veterinary professional organisations, has been considering the issue and believes future legislation needs to better protect the public against dogs dangerously out of control without compromising any individual dog’s welfare. The Group considers the following proposals to be balanced, and (if implemented as intended) believes they should help to prevent future attacks on people and animals occurring in the future – therefore protecting both the safety of the public and the welfare of dogs.

 

Objective

 

To better protect the public without compromising dogs’ welfare by the introduction of a ‘Control of Dogs Act’ to incorporate the better aspects of the Dogs Act 1871 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended but ultimately repeal them, as they are widely criticised for their deficiencies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Justification

 

New legislation is required to better protect the public.

 

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 as amended has failed because:

 

· Section 3 only applies after an incident has taken place, rather than operating on a preventative basis;

· Section 3 only applies when the dog is in a public place, or a private place where it is not permitted to be (so that persons entering a private place where the dog is permitted to be have no protection);

· Section 3 only applies to dogs that have acted dangerously towards people;

· The Act has cost the Police much of their vital resources – it has cost millions of pounds in kennelling associated costs since it came into force;

· There is no provision for an owner to apply to a Court for a seized dog to be returned;

· Section 1 predicts a dog’s behaviour based on its physical conformation when this is not possible. This is why Section 1 dogs placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs have never been proven dangerous, and why dogs of breeds or types other than those prohibited have been involved in dog attacks.

 

The Dogs Act 1871 has failed because:

 

· There is no power of seizure;

· If an owner transfers the dog to someone else prior to a Court hearing, they may be able to avoid the proceedings;

· The Court has no power to require the owner to pay compensation.

 

Proposal

 

· Low level incidents should be dealt with by a staged approach of Control Orders, where necessary through the Courts. This should be used where the dog has, for instance, shown aggression, caused an injury to another animal, caused harm, or caused a person to reasonably believe it will cause harm; Any person could make a complaint to the Court (to reduce costs to the public purse).

· Retain the offence to deal with serious aggression e.g. a dog that causes a serious injury, or a dog that is encouraged by its owner to be aggressive; and limit enforcement to the police and local authorities.

· Retain the offence to possess or advertise a restricted type of dog (e.g. currently the pit bull terrier type dog) unless the dog in question is registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs, and re-open the Index to owner led applications provided it can be shown on the balance of probability the dog is not a danger to public safety.

 

 

 

 

Detailed Proposal

 

· Base legislation on the legal duty of care of the person in whose charge the dog is, and the owner of the dog that put the person in charge of it, that the dog is not dangerously out of control.

· Apply the legislation to incidents that take place in public as well as private.

· Provide that, where the legislation allows the Police a power of seizure (under a warrant if not in a public place), proceedings must begin within one month of seizure for a minor complaint and six months of seizure for a more serious offence.

· Provide a graduated system, through the Courts if appropriate, to introduce Control Orders requiring but not limited to, one or more of the following: the dog to be destroyed; the dog to be kept under proper control; the dog to be kept subject to conditions including being kept on a lead and/or muzzled; the dog to be re-homed; the owner to be disqualified from having charge/being in possession of a dog for such a period as the court considers appropriate; and the owner to be required to pay up to £5,000 in compensation for personal injury, loss or damage arising from the incident where the dog has actually caused harm in a minor incident, and up to a £5,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment or an unlimited fine and/or up to 2 years imprisonment, in a more serious case.

· Include defences for anyone accused to prove that the dog was provoked into being aggressive or the attack was in self-defence, or at the time the dog was dangerous the dog was not under the owner’s control but under the control of someone he believed to be responsible, or the dog was on private land where it was permitted to be and the person or animal was a trespasser (i.e. present on the land without express or implied permission).

· Include an appeals procedure in the legislation for an owner to appeal against the Court’s first control order straight away and for the conditions of the control order to be varied/discharged after at least a year.

· Include an exemption for dogs used on official duties as service dogs, when at work.

[Rumpole]

all in all very fair and nothing in there that a responsible owner would seriously object to

[Melp]

[kola]

Digesting

 

Amanda

[jacqui d]

All sounds very fair and sensible to me

[rip and cap]

Retain the offence to possess or advertise a restricted type of dog (e.g. currently the pit bull terrier type dog) unless the dog in question is registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs, and re-open the Index to owner led applications provided it can be shown on the balance of probability the dog is not a danger to public safety.

 

Would this mean to keep the pit bull a banned breed?

[Rumpole]

it means rhe will be a restricted breed who must abide by certain rules

[rip and cap]

it means rhe will be a restricted breed who must abide by certain rules

 

 

So basically relaxing breed specific legislation?

[Allie No Dots]

Basically yes. We have to be realistic and see that right now theres no chance of them considering completly legalising any of the four banned breeds. But picture BSL as a wall, if this goes thro then a brick or two are gone. Keep chipping away and the whole thing will fall down.

 

The thing i REALLY like is the increased sentences for those who allow/encourage their dogs to be aggressive. This new act seems to provide a fair defence which *should* ensure only those trully using their dogs as status symbols are punished under it. To see idiot owners targetted brings much joy to me By removing them from owning a *status symbol* dog we may actually start to show the dogs in their true light and then we stand a chance of one day seeing these dogs in good homes where they are treated the same as any other breed.

 

Of course saying that, this is the proposal...it hasnt gone trough and there will be much debate and probably several changes along the way. Thats what needs watching closley. We wouldnt want them slipping in a vague word here or there that will screw everything up now would we?!

[rip and cap]

Sounds good to me and yes you are right, they would not remove but they might relax bsl. Who would this be forward/proposed to???

[BillyMalc]

Sounds great to me! Okay, it's far from legalising the four banned breeds, but surely if legislation is introduced whereby the onus is on the owner they can't carry on banning dogs based on their breed (well yeah, in practice I know they can, but this would make a great start towards BSL being repealed ).

[merledogs]

Low level incidents should be dealt with by a staged approach of Control Orders, where necessary through the Courts. This should be used where the dog has, for instance, shown aggression, caused an injury to another animal, caused harm, or caused a person to reasonably believe it will cause harm; Any person could make a complaint to the Court (to reduce costs to the public purse).

I don't like that last sentence at all

[Rumpole]

I don't like that last sentence at all

 

currently ayone can complain to the police for the same things under the dda it is just taking the police out of it and putting the onus on the complainant

these are just proposals and im sure there will be changes along the way we just need to keep an eye on what they are theres a long way to go yet

[merledogs]

The thing that makes me uncomfortable about it is that currently the Police can act as a barrier against spurious claims and sort out which ones are genuine and which ones are just neighbour disputes,etc - whereas if anybody can just go straight to court then you don't have that buffer. Would be interested in hearing who decides which cases get heard, ie do the CPS still do it or does anybody taking a case to court have the right to get that case tried (can't imagine that would be the case, they must have somebody making a judgement call surely?)

Edited June 3, 2007 by madmerle

[Rumpole]

i think and i may be wrong that these would be civil cases brought by a member of the public at their own expense in which case the case would be put before a district judge who would have access to all evidence produced by both sides in order tpo make a judgement and if there was not enough evidence to substantiate the claim would also have the right to throw out that claim but as i said it is all in the early stages and we need to be vigilant at every stage to ensure problems can be eliminated