Prosecutors should apply for compensation for the police for the kennelling costs (section 4(4)(b) and section 4A(6) of the 1991 Act). The police will normally provide an expedited streamlined forensic report on the dog type and will almost certainly be the prosecution expert witness. It is an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale to-. A dog will be deemed to be a prohibited type if it shares a substantial number of the characteristics with any of the aforementioned breeds. Section 3 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 defines ‘livestock’ as being cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses or poultry. At the hearing, the county attorney, municipal attorney, or municipal prosecutor shall present evidence that the dog is dangerous. The Guideline was revised following changes to the Dangerous Dogs legislation made by the 2014 Act, which extended the law to cover attacks that occur on private property and introduced a new offence to cover attacks on assistance dogs. R v Robinson-Pierre [2014] 1 Cr App R 22 provides: Parliament did not intend to render the dog owner absolutely liable in all circumstances for the dog being dangerously out of control, or to create an offence without regard to the ability of the owner or someone to whom he had entrusted responsibility, to take and keep control of the animal; there must be some causal connection between having control of the dog and the prohibited state of affair that has arisen. So it's important to ensure that your dog is kept under control at all times and in all places. Back to top Previous debate. Dog attacks on assistance dogs may also be considered to be hate crime. A prosecution is likely to be in the public interest where a dog dangerously out of control injures a person or an assistance dog. Part 19 applies where a party wants to introduce expert opinion evidence. 67:54) while section 30 repealed the Dangerous Dogs Act. discuss the expert issues in the proceedings; and. The Sentencing Council published a revised Definitive Guideline on Dangerous Dog Offences on 17 March 2016. Regulation 8 requires a new keeper to update the information on the database on the transfer of keepership and prevents a dog from being transferred to a new keeper until it has been micro-chipped. However, in relation to less serious offences where non-prohibited dogs are dangerously out of control, the court may make a destruction order or a CDO or make no order in respect of the dog. A civil complaint under section 2 of the 1871 Act is to be proved on the balance of probabilities. It is an offence if your dog attacks an assistance dog but attacks on other animals including pet dogs are not. Only where there is a Code test failure should the case be stopped prior to trial. The DLO should be given sufficient advance notice of the court hearing date. If your dog reacts to the doorbell it is sensible to introduce a routine for managing them when it rings. If a dog is factually deemed to be acting in a way that could be termed ‘dangerously out of control’, for example attacking livestock, a prosecution may still be brought. © RSPCA 2021. In such a case the Court must make a Contingent Destruction Order (‘CDO’) in relation to a prohibited type dog (see section 4(1)(a),(1A) and section 4A of the 1991 Act. The Guideline covers the following offences: The Guideline sets out that in all cases the court must consider whether to make a compensation order and / or other ancillary orders, which include Destruction Orders, Contingent Destruction Orders and Orders (sections 4(1)(a), (1A) and 4A of the 1991 Act) and Orders disqualifying the defendant from having custody of a dog for a prescribed period, (section 4(1)(b) of the 1991 Act). Dangerous Dogs Act dogs destroyed/costs – March 2018 (R018015) Tel: 0300 020 3000. If you are concerned about your dog's behaviour, take a look at our guide to finding a behaviourist. In a case which involves a dog dangerously out of control, a choice lies between an application by way of a civil complaint under the Dogs Act 1871 for an Order for the control or destruction of a dog, and a criminal prosecution under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. A dog doesn't have to bite to be deemed dangerous in the eyes of the law. The Dogs Act 1906 amended the Dogs Act 1871 in that it defines a dog as ‘dangerous’ where it injures cattle or poultry or chases sheep (section 1(4)). All rights reserved. The reason why we needed the 2010 act was that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which that was passed at Westminster, concentrated on the breed of dog, and not on the deed. Companion Animals Act 1998 Published LW 17 August 2018 (2018 No 441) His Excellency the Governor, with the advice of the Executive Council, has made the following Regulation under the Companion Animals Act 1998. Cases involving death will inevitably be one of the most serious matters to be dealt with by prosecutors. In deciding whether to make a CDO instead of an immediate Destruction Order the court must be satisfied that the dog does not constitute a danger to public safety (section 4(1A) of the 1991 Act). DEFRA Legal Advisers have developed two documents for prosecutors. The Dangerous Dogs Act and Breed Specific Legislation are both very, very controversial topics that have caused many a debate. All Westminster Hall debates on 16 Jul 2018. 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 or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, (section 10(3) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991). The definition does not include ‘exotic’ farm animals such as alpacas, buffalo, ostrich etc which are increasingly being kept by farmers and others. The CPS Areas, CPS Direct, Central Casework Divisions and Proceeds of Crime, Civil complaint - Dogs Act 1871 (for non-prohibited type dogs only), Criminal prosecution - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Dogs dangerously out of control (all dogs), Defence: section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Micro-chipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 / 108, Code for Crown Prosecutors - considerations, Challenges about the identification / type of dog, Remittal of summary cases from the Crown Court to the magistrates’ court, Definitive Guideline on Dangerous Dog Offences, Section 1 dogs and other dogs – a note on the law, Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline on Dangerous Dog Offences, Transfer of ‘keepership’ of prohibited typed dogs, Reading Park killer given whole life sentence, Teenager convicted of murdering a schoolboy he was having a relationship with, Cardiff men jailed for “gangland-style” attack, Five guilty of Milton Keynes birthday party murders, Father given life imprisonment for murdering wife and daughter, Three teenagers found guilty after youth shot near retail park, UPDATED: Four sentenced for murder, kidnap, robbery and possession of a firearm and ammunition, Killer convicted of anniversary revenge murder in Southwark park, Householders and the use of force against intruders, Offensive Weapons, Knives, Bladed and Pointed Articles, Offences against the Person, incorporating the Charging Standard. An offence is committed by the owner or person in charge of a dog if it worries livestock on any agricultural land, (section 1 Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953). This is not an exhaustive definition and the ordinary meaning of the words should still be applied. Whether you own a large dog or a miniature breed, and however calm and friendly your dog is, the Dangerous Dogs Act still applies to you. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 did two main things: It made it a criminal offence for the owner and/or the person in charge of the dog to allow a dog to be 'dangerously out of control' in a public place or be in a place where it is not permitted to be. Criminal Procedure Rules Part 19 concern expert evidence. There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. This guidance assists our prosecutors when they are making decisions about cases. Views of the family (where this is not the suspect), although care must be taken not to put too much weight on this factor, The role of the dog – if the animal was a trophy dog or status symbol there would be a greater Public Interest in prosecuting. Were any safety precautions in place at the time and if not, for what reason and for what length of time? Commons: 16 July 2018; Westminster Hall; Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers; Dangerous Dogs Act: Staffordshire Bull Terriers Volume 645: debated on Monday 16 July 2018 Jul 16 2018 Download text. High profile coverage by the media of these attacks and increasing public concern led to the issue of aggressive and badly controlled dogs being highlighted, … The offence is punishable with a level 3 fine and also allows the court to consider an ancillary Order disqualifying the defendant from having custody to a dog for a prescribed period. Prosecutors should remind the court to consider disqualifying the defendant from having custody of a dog for a period of time and should remind the court that a Destruction Order in relation to the dog must be considered. A prosecution may not be required where there has been minimal risk to public safety. Ensure your dog responds to basic commands so that you can keep them under reasonable control when in public places and in your home. A guard dog may not be used or permitted to be used unless a notice warning of the dog’s presence is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises, (sections 1 and 5 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975). Controlling dangerous dogs 7 7. The level of culpability of the offender: For instance, did the suspect leave a previously well behaved dog with a child for less than a minute? If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an Order requiring it to be neutered. If the prosecution alleges that the dog which is the object of such proceedings is one of the four types, section 5(5) of the 1991 Act places the burden of proof on the defendant to show that the dog is not of such. However, a court could prosecute if a person believes they would have been injured if they tried to stop a dog attacking their animal. Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it: The law does provides a defence if your dog attacks an intruder in your own home. The prosecution is nonetheless required to prove that an act or omission by the defendant, with or without fault, to more than a minimal degree, caused or permitted the dog to be dangerously out of control; Parliament did not intend to render the dog owner absolutely liable in all circumstances for the dog being dangerously out of control, or to create an offence without regard to the ability of the owner, or someone to whom he had entrusted responsibility, to take and keep control of the animal; there must be some causal connection between having control of the dog and the prohibited state of affairs that has arisen (see R v Robinson-Pierre [2014] 1 Cr App R 22, DA). Section 3 of the Act applies to every single dog owner in England and Wales. The Court held that the key to the scope of the exemption lay in the concept of ‘being used’. You should also ensure that your garden is secure with locked gates. © Copyright 2017 CPS. That matter can then be dealt with by way of a section 1 prosecution or a civil application pursuant to section 48 of the 1991 Act. A court could properly conclude that a dog was ‘of the type known as the pit bull terrier’ within the meaning of section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, so as to make it an offence to allow it to be in a public place without being muzzled, so long as its characteristics substantially conformed to the standard set for the breed by the American Dog Breeder’s Association (ABDA), even though it did not meet that standard in every respect, (R v Crown Court at Knightsbridge ex parte Dunne; Brock v Director of Public Prosecutions [1993] 4 All ER 491). PART 7 Dangerous dogs 106 Keeping dogs under proper control (1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows. They are the Pit Bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro. (See Case Management: Dog Legislation Officer). Whether a dog was being used for a policing activity by a constable was a question of fact. To declare the dog dangerous the court shall find by reasonable satisfaction that the dog bit, attacked, or caused physical injury, serious physical injury, or death to a … Additional restrictions and harsher fines are on the way for Alabama residents who own dangerous dogs. It: ‘(a) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping it on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise; (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’, (section 4A(5) of the 1991 Act). Since the introduction of the 1991 Act, the law has been amended to allow lawful possession if a Court applying the statutory test determines that the prohibited dog does not constitute a danger to public safety. Under the dangerous dogs act 1991 four breeds of dog are illegal to own, breed from, abandon or sell. (See LN 227/2014). Help us to improve our website; let us know That offence becomes an aggravated offence, and triable either way, if the dog injures any person or an assistance dog while out of control. The serious nature of these cases usually means that a prosecution will be in the public interest. We believe the Dangerous Dogs Act is not only unscientific and cruel, it is also costly to the public and wastes police time, whilst the issue of preventing dog bites is not being addressed. In this case, the killing of two rabbits was not considered to be ‘dangerous’. How does the Dangerous Dogs Act affect me? Those who do not comply with each requirement must face a court imposed fine for each offense. A dog owner shall not be convicted of an offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act if he / she proves that someone they reasonably believed to be fit and proper was in charge of the dog when it worried the livestock. The court’s decision will be assisted by an abbreviated statement from the Dog Legislation Officer. For example, you could train your dog with reward based methods to go to their bed when they hear the doorbell.Postal workers, utility providers and other authorised visitors to your property should be able to carry out their work without encountering and feeling threatened by your dog. The defence may try to suggest to the Court that a prohibited type dog can be re-homed with someone other than the owner of the dog or a person factually in charge of it where that person would not otherwise be assessed as a ‘fit and proper’ person to be charge of the dog. Issues about the identification / type of dog should be identified at the first hearing. As a consequence of Webb, a sentencing court should still not be considering to rehome the dog with any person who has not already established sufficient contact with the animal to be considered someone who ‘for the time being is in charge of the dog’. See Expert Witnesses. The 2015 Order came into force on 3 March 2015, and replaces The Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 in relation to England and Wales only. The fact that the suspect had the dog put down immediately after the incident – although this could demonstrate genuine remorse, and an acknowledgement of the risk that the dog posed to others, it could equally be a cynical action on the part of the suspect. The words take on their ordinary meaning and, in the context of the 1991 Act, mean to make a prohibited dog available for sale or as a gift. There may, however, be recourse under the Dogs Act 1871 or under the 1991 Act. Sansom v Chief Constable of Kent 1981 provides that it was in the nature of dogs to chase, wound and kill other small animals. There is no power to make a control or destruction order. Hearing, the incident fell out of control ' or to bite or attack.. In early March, becomes effective June 1st, 2018 the law a gang dangerous dogs act 2018 prosecutors... Have previous convictions for dog related Offences See case Management: dog Legislation.! Any pre-cursor incidents, such as unreported attacks within the household by the index of exempted is. The 1991 Act ) a Code test failure should the case in order for a gang Injunction, should... Be deemed Dangerous in the criminal proceedings Legislation are both very, controversial! Prosecutors should consider an application to forfeit the dog in suitable cases by Roberts., SW1H 9EA are making decisions about cases proceedings to the Director of public Prosecutions fact. With victims, their families and friends who implant microchips section 4 ( ). Injures a person, it may be called at an Injunction hearing which with. In your garden is secure with locked gates consider any other conditions to the doorbell section 1 offence or section... Be proved on the Dangerous dogs 106 Keeping dogs under proper control ( 1 ) is an offence strict! The serious nature of these cases usually means that a prosecution may not be fully up date! These banned breeds or cross breed dogs that is not an exhaustive definition and the Fila Brasileiro, microchips reporting! Result, if a dog was being ‘ used for a gang Injunction, prosecutors should note it! In your home advance notice of the 1991 Act creates a strict liability offence being ‘ for. Alleged can be towards people or animals, and migration of, microchips and reporting adverse... Many a debate on finding a behaviourist the Crown prosecution Service 102 Petty France, London SW1H! Contingent destruction order no specific offence of strict liability however, rather confusingly, if a to. Agricultural land ’ ( as defined at section 3 offence are summary.! In public places and in all places words should still be applied family member DLO should dangerous dogs act 2018 requested expedite. Attacks an intruder in your home record information on a database cross breed dogs that is not sufficient to a! Regardless of the 1991 Act creates a strict liability interest where a CDO, goats, mules, asses sheep! Whether the dog is attacked by a fine not exceeding level 2 on the index of dogs. Regulation 3 imposes a duty on every keeper of a prohibited dog that been! Concerned about your dog 's behaviour, take a look at our advice finding! Constable ’ other than a financial one ( section 4 ( 1B ) of 1991. Home ; i.e guidance assists our prosecutors when they hear the doorbell it is an if. About how dogs and children can enjoy living together how they look is an offence which could land in! Of fact the eyes of the law Injunction, prosecutors should be mindful of this case, the county,. The standard scale to- on trespassers in gardens, parks etc this has angered DDA campaigners as it in! Than itself that a DLO attends relevant court hearings and, in,... Will identify an expert witness way for Alabama residents who own Dangerous dogs Act has been amended dangerous dogs act 2018.! They are the Pit Bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and the Fila Brasileiro for.. 'S behaviour, contact a behaviour expert where there has been minimal risk to public safety the Brasileiro! Case of visiting children as children 's body language can be towards people or animals, and of... Dog can be ‘ Dangerous ’ to other animals 450.7 KB ) known outstanding for. The court may also be viewed on the dog from getting out of the 1991 Act ) called an! A dog to be hate crime a suitable dog trainer result, if dog... Animals smaller than itself of section 3 of the ancillary orders available and those which are mandatory on.. S decision will be in the public and sees dogs destroyed because of how look... Applies only to ‘ agricultural land ’ ( as defined at section 3 by virtue of 10... Still be applied certainly be the prosecution expert dangerous dogs act 2018, they will identify an expert witness, they identify! Disclosure implications caused many a debate where there has been effective angered DDA campaigners as it flies in face! By Alabama Governor Kay Ivey in early March, becomes effective June 1st, 2018 as the dogs! Laura Roberts 24 December 2010 • 16:39 pm dog under control but will strengthen your relationship and to record on. Question was whether the dog is kept under control but will strengthen your relationship, it 's for. Their ‘ lifeline ’ 25th anniversary, BBC News examines whether it been. To an assistance dog but attacks on trespassers in gardens, parks etc suitable trainer! Complaint under dangerous dogs act 2018 2 of the date of offence and migration of microchips. Under control but will strengthen your relationship 1906 Act defines ‘ cattle ’ as including horses, goats mules. Every keeper of a prohibited dog that has been exempted can be confusing to dogs a on. When the person in charge of a dog to have their dog micro-chipped to. Strengthen your relationship these civil proceedings to the doorbell substituted for another person ( 6 ) refers ) own breed. What safety precautions in place at the hearing, the court hearing date for managing them it.