Rumpole Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 (edited) News Release: Monday 20th July 2009 Anti-BSL campaigners involved with the ‘Saving Bruce’ campaign are questioning how an Amendment removing the mandatory destruction for dogs found guilty of being a ‘pit bull type’ in Northern Ireland has been in force for EIGHT YEARS despite widespread belief to the contrary. DDA Watch, Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue and the Bull Breed Advisory Service contacted UK Barrister Pamela Rose and worked together for days [the reasons for this are set out below] researching the general legal situation for dogs found to be ‘pit bull type’ by the courts in Northern Ireland. It was known that an Amendment cited as the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2001 was in existence but it is unclear and still a mystery why it appears no one had picked up on the details of all sections and is a situation which will no doubt have repercussions. On Friday. 17th July 2009, written confirmation was received from the Animal Identification, Legislation and Welfare Branch at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD) who confirmed that all sections of the Amendment came into operation on the expiration of two months from the date of Royal Assent which was 29th January 2001, on the same day, the Barrister Pamela Rose also received confirmation from the Statute Law Database. However confusion over the potential existence of an exemption scheme seems to be spread as far as MLP’s within the Northern Ireland Assembly who were responsible for bringing in the Amendment in 2001. As an example: In 2007 Trevor Lunn, Alliance MLP, called for review of the legislation believing that mandatory destruction remained the sole option for courts. http://angie.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2007-11-20.5.1 When asked in September of 2008 if, as minister for Northern Irelands Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Gildernew would shift emphasis from destruction of dogs to penalties for owners in future legislation Ms Gildernew replied stating: “The control of dogs, including dangerous dogs, is regulated under the Dogs (NI) Order 1983, as amended by the Dangerous Dogs (NI) Order 1991. The Order designates certain types of dogs of which it is an offence to be in possession, such as the pit bull terrier. Local Councils are responsible for enforcing this legislation and may seize any dog that appears to be of a banned type. Such dogs are destroyed unless their owner can prove that they are not of a banned type." http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/qanda/2007mandate/writtenans/2008/080926.htm However the Amendment does not demand destruction. In January 2007, six years after the Amendment came into force, Ballymena council held the first “pit bull Amnesty” in Northern Ireland lasting for four weeks and resulting in the death of 15 dogs. Antrim’s Borough dog warden commented on the proposed amnesty and was quoted by “Our Dogs” newspaper http://www.ourdogs.co.uk/News/2006/December2006/011206/outrage.htm as stating: “The first thing you need to be aware of is that the amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act, which allows pit bull “type” dogs to be registered and rehomed, does not apply in northern Ireland." The Guardian newspaper article on the (then) proposed amnesty stated in 2006: "Northern Ireland's dangerous dogs order is slightly different from the law in England: the regulations are enforced by council dog wardens rather than the police and magistrates do not have any discretion to stop a pit bull being put down." The North Down Council web site refers to the legislation stating: “The law bans the ownership, breeding, sale and exchange, and advertising for sale of specified types of fighting dogs.” Yet again there is no mention of any Amendment, which enables a court to make an order under the exemption scheme as an alternative to destruction. To further confuse the DARD website does not state the potential for dogs to escape destruction nor do any of the Northern Ireland council websites checked by the campaigners over the last few days. It is because of this that a response and confirmation was sought from ‘OPSI’ and from DARD. Questions must be asked as to whether Northern Ireland council dog wardens, charged with enforcing "dangerous dogs legislation" and Northern Ireland Ministers and MLPs who create the legislation that governs their country are aware of the removal of mandatory destruction and why no steps appear to have been taken to correct the incorrect view that an amendment was not in existence? For Further Information – Please Contact: DDA Watch – www.dangerousdogsact.co.uk Email: [email protected] / Tel: 0844 844 2900 Endangered Dogs Defence & Rescue - www.endangereddogs.com Bull Breed Advisory Service – www.bullbreedadvisoryservice.com Background Information on Northern Ireland Dangerous Dogs Laws: The Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order in 1991; this was the NI equivalent of the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which was introduced in Great Britain. Both pieces of legislation contained breed specific elements and prohibited the ownership of four types of dog mainly the ‘type of dog known as a pit bull terrier’ unless exempted within a specified time frame after which all dogs of the designated type which had not been fully exempted were ordered destroyed by the courts. Under the DDA of 1991 owners were given a short space of time to register their dogs, the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 laid out the ‘rules’ under which a dog could be exempted and thus allowed to live out the remainder of its life providing that the terms of exemption were adhered to. In Northern Ireland at the same time, a statutory rule was passed; the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (Northern Ireland) 1991 (SR No. 466), it too laid out the procedure under which owners could exempt their dogs within a set time frame. Both pieces of legislation were draconian is than any dog found to be of pit bull type and not fully exempted by the deadline dates given was ordered by the court to be destroyed-there was no discretion available when sentencing leading to the destruction of many family pets. In 1997 GB passed the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act and discretion when sentencing was given to the court, this enabled dogs found to be of a prohibited type to be ordered registered onto the Index of Exempted Dogs if the court was satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. The 1997 Dangerous Dogs Amendment was not extended to Northern Ireland. The campaigners researched back through the Northern Ireland Assembly minutes to 1999 and then dissected all sections of the NI Amendment legislation of 2001 according to the information available. Pamela Rose considered, after studying the Amendment Act, together with the minutes of the NI Assembly and the annotated statute from the OPSI website, that it appeared that discretionary powers were indeed available-meaning that the mandatory death sentence for prohibited dogs had been removed. It was thought possible that not all section of the Amendment has been passed at the same time. According to the NI Assembly the Amendment Bill has received its first reading on the 5th June 2000 and progressed through another six stages before being given Royal Assent on the 29th January 2001. To be sure, all stages were researched to detect if any sections hadn’t been enacted and the statutory status of each piece was rigorously checked. For confirmation , the statutory data base were contacted. In GB the Amendment of 1997 refers to the ‘Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991’ which can be accessed online and lays out the procedure for exemption (registration onto the Index of Exempted Dogs). The NI Amendment of 2001 refers to a similar scheme defined in Statutory Rule 466. Quote: “(2) Where an order is made under sub-paragraph (a) of Article 25C(3), Part III of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (Northern Ireland) 1991 (SR No. 466) shall have effect as if—“ Statutory Rule 466 is thought to be an important piece in the jigsaw as it is expected to describe the legal process by which owners must follow to save the life of their dog when an order is made by the court as an alternative to destruction. Campaigners painstakingly searched for the elusive document but the actual statutory rule could not be found online, which was rather strange and extremely frustrating. There were several references to it, and so it had to exist. Research was not helped by the fact that the Northern Ireland assembly suspended for four years between 2002 and 2007 and power reverted to the Northern Ireland Office, the NI Assembly was reinstated in May 2007. Statutory Rules NI dating back to 1991 can be found online, but the SR 466 1991 is not listed and it has taken time to locate.. It seems from this Order that the District Council is responsible for running the exemption scheme which directly affects the life and death of innocent pet dogs like Bruce in Northern Ireland. (ends) Edited July 20, 2009 by Rumpole we have found SR466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 WFT - there *IS* an amendment in NI after all? Will there be contact details so that people can write about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 WFT - there *IS* an amendment in NI after all? Will there be contact details so that people can write about this? so it seems ange and confirmation that the 2001 act has gained royal assent with all parts included and enacted into law have been received from both DARD and OPSI Its possible that this slipped through without anyone noticing its importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackmagic Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Wow, that is some discovery. Well done to all those who have beavered away to help Bruce and hopefully more dogs in the future. Perhaps the judge who ordered his release, subject to conditions, knew about this amendment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReikiAnge Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 so it seems ange and confirmation that the 2001 act has gained royal assent with all parts included and enacted into law have been received from both DARD and OPSI Its possible that this slipped through without anyone noticing its importance. Good god! Well done indeed to those that have been working so hard on this. I do hope this will be the piece that allows Bruce and others, their freedom. My heart breaks for those that have lost their dogs believing there was no amendment though Please keep us posted on this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyMalc Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 totally stumped! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumpole Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Wow, that is some discovery. Well done to all those who have beavered away to help Bruce and hopefully more dogs in the future. Perhaps the judge who ordered his release, subject to conditions, knew about this amendment? thats what made us start looking. ive made some changes to the release as we have now got a copy of SR466 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melp Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 A MASSIVE pat on the back to all of those who have been researching their arses off the past week or so. I seriously hope no technical difficulties are found!! Well done guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts