DDA/BSL Consultation Opens

EFRA Committee Information

An inquiry into the Dangerous Dogs Act and breed specific legislation is now open for written evidence.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is launching an inquiry into the legislation on dangerous dogs.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced to protect the public from dangerous dog attacks. The Act made it an offence to keep four types of dog traditionally bred for fighting - the pit bull terrier, Japanese Tosa, Fila Brasileiro and Dogo Argentino - unless the dog was placed on the Index of Exempted Dogs and kept in compliance with certain requirements.

There has been substantial debate about the effectiveness of this legislation and the impacts on dog welfare. According to the RSPCA, 30 people died between 1991 and 2016 in dog-related incidents, of which 21 involved dogs of breeds/types not prohibited by the law. The number of attacks has also risen, with yearly hospital admissions for dog bites increasing by 76% between 2006-2016.

Neil Parish MP, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, said:

“The Government is responsible for protecting the public from dangerous animals, so it is essential that laws evolve alongside our understanding of what works.

“The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act banned four specific types of dog, but since then attacks have continued and 21 people have been killed by non-banned types.

 “My Committee will investigate whether the Government's current approach is having the desired effect, and whether any changes are needed to ensure that the public is properly protected and that animal welfare concerns are properly addressed”.  

Terms of reference

In particular, the Committee seeks written submissions that address the following issues:

1. How effective is the Government’s current approach to protecting the public from dangerous dog attacks?
2. What changes, if any, should be made to the current approach and legislation?
3. How can local authorities and police forces be best supported in reducing the number of dangerous dog-related incidents?
4. What lessons could the UK learn from other countries dealing with similar issues?

Deadline for submissions

Written evidence should be submitted through the Committee’s web portal by midnight on Wednesday 6 June. It is recommended that all submitters familiarise themselves with the Guidance on giving evidence to a Select Committee of the House of Commons which outlines particulars of word count, format, document size, and content restrictions.

Anti-BSL Rallies Held Globally:

Dog lovers have united worldwide in peaceful protests, rallies and awareness days which have taken place in a united global day of anti-breed specific legislation events this month.

The UK joined the global day of action once again and London took part with a peaceful protest, the Westminster event was held on Saturday 15th July and there were also awareness day events in Coventry West Midlands and Cardiff, Wales.

The Westminster protest was organised by DDA Watch Ltd, a campaign group which helps and supports dogs and their families affected by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and this years' event marked 26 years of failed, unjust dog law in the UK.

Ottawa, Winnipeg, Ontario, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Barrie, Truro, Nova Scotia in Canada and Germany also held anti-BSL events for the 15th July as part of the Global Anti-breed specific legislation issue affecting dogs and their families world wide.

Dog lovers travelled across the UK to unite and take a stand for innocent dogs and to call for a repeal of a failed piece of legislation that targets types of dogs and condemns them as 'dangerous' based on their physical appearance.

The Westminster protest was a grass-roots gathering, with volunteers present who actively campaign and support innocent dogs and their families being torn apart by breed specific legislation on a daily basis.

Attending to support the event was veterinary surgeon and animal behaviourist Dr Kendal Shepherd MRCVS, canine behaviourists Robert Alleyne and Jordan Shelley and dog trainer for film, television and stage productions, Robert Stuhldreer with his beautiful assistance dog Flora. One supporter was dressed as the 'Grim Reaper' with a message for Defra attached to the black outfit which said 'I am Breed Specific Legislation' and gave out information leaflets to those passing by outside the Parliamentary buildings.

Giving out plenty of canine kisses was the beautiful Staffie named 'Whippet', a Battersea Dogs Home Ambassadog who came along to support the event with her mum, Chris McLean. Whippet wore her special pink coat with the words 'Breed Specific Legislation Murders My Friends' written on it, raising awareness for her doggy pals.

At the event in central London, there was a large white sheet headed ‘People’s Messages to Defra – 26 Years of Tears’ and dog lovers wrote their own personal messages to be sent to Government; some in memory of much loved dogs who had never put a paw wrong and have been killed by the outdated legislation. 

Another precious dog named Paul was remembered, heartbreakingly his casket of ashes was brought to the protest to show the end result of many dogs affected by this harsh and unfair legislation. Paul had lost his life in 2015 and campaigners shed tears as his casket was placed in remembrance at the event.

Banners and placards were held high just outside the mighty buildings of Westminster where the law which condemns dogs based on their appearance was first passed 26 years ago; a young supporter who had travelled a considerable distance held up a photograph of Lennox, a canine victim of breed specific legislation from Northern Ireland whose death five years ago this month had sparked global outrage and condemnation, bringing the injustices of the legislation to the attention of thousands of people across the world and leaving a legacy of hope that disastrous BSL will one day end.

Two supporters from Devon held up their placard for a much loved dog named Sky who is held incarcerated and caught up in a legal nightmare due to BSL. 

Another innocent dog named Blitz who has been tragically sentenced to death under the barbaric law and endured two and a half years imprisoned on canine death row was remembered and many members of the public were shocked to learn that this is what can and often does happen in the UK and overseas, to pet dogs who have never bitten or hurt anyone. Several people who stopped to speak to the campaigners expressed their disgust and shock that this legislation exists in Great Britain and other parts of the world.

Over two thousand DDA Watch leaflets were distributed in central London and further petition signatures were gained to help create awareness of the situation which campaigners say is long overdue for repeal.

Maria Daines, a Director of DDA Watch and one of the event organisers said: 'It is high time breed specific legislation was at least extensively debated in parliament with a view to repealing section 1 (DDA) which has proven over 26 years to be ineffective, unfair and cruel to the dogs and families affected by it. Education (as opposed to prohibitive legislation) is necessary and helps to keep dog owners, the public and canine companions safe; Banning, restricting and killing dogs that look a certain way is ridiculously outdated, heartbreaking for many and a waste of public money. In 2017, we can and should be doing much better for our canine friends, their families, the public and those who work with dogs, including stray and rescue dogs.'

Royal Mail and CWU Dog Awareness Week

Dog Awareness Week July 2017:

• 
  

Royal Mail and the Communication Workers Union are launching their annual dog awareness week 3 – 7 July.
As the UK school break for their summer holidays, families enjoy the summer weather, which is good news for them but BAD NEWS FOR POSTAL WORKERS as this signals what Posties know as the ‘dog-bite season’ and the time of the year which traditionally sees a big spike in the number of attacks.

Royal Mail and postal workers trade union the CWU will be campaigning again to raise public awareness and urge customers to be responsible dog owners as well as urge caution amongst postmen and women who want to provide a good service but sometimes pay a heavy price.

CWU National Health and Safety Officer Dave Joyce said: "Seven postal workers are attacked by dogs every day of the year. It is unacceptable and the whole idea of Dog Awareness Week is to highlight the problem and the repercussions for dog owners and the victims, many of whom are seriously injured and some can not return to mail delivery work”.

“Over 70% of Dog Attacks on Postmen and Women occur on the garden path or at the doorstep of the dog owners home. It just needs owners to restrict their animals access to the front garden or to put their dog in another room before opening the door to collect a parcel or sign for an item.”

“Customers are always pleased to see the Postman or Postwoman arrive as they’re eager to take delivery of their goods they’ve ordered and paid for on the internet but thousands of customers who own a dog unfortunately don’t give a second thought to the Postal Worker’s safety by putting the dog in a safe, secure place.”  

“The vast majority of our customers and their dogs aren't a problem but irresponsible and reckless dog owners are.”

“The new dog control laws now identify and penalises irresponsible dog owners and many are now facing prosecution and paying heavy court penalties and end up withcriminal records. So it’s in their best interest in more ways than one to make sure the dog don’t bite the Postman.”

“One Essex dog owner was recently fined £8,800 after his dog injured a Postwoman’s fingers as she put letters through the door – which is another problem Postal workers face!”

“The penalties can also include losing their dogs, being banned from dog ownership, paying compensation and even a Jail sentence.”

“Dog owners need to fully understand that their actions usually are the cause of a dog being dangerous and simple precautions can prevent the pain for everyone concerned. No matter what breed of dog is involved, the dog can present a substantial danger to postal workers."

Top tips for dog owners to help the postman or woman deliver the post in safety:
• Keep your dog indoors around the time that the postman calls to deliver mail.
• Before you opened the door to collect a parcel or sign for an item - put your dog in another room.
• Make sure children don’t open the door, as dogs can push by them and attack the postman.
• If you have a back garden, close off the access, so your dog can't get round to the front when the postman calls.
• If your dog attacks the mail and could bite a postman’s fingers as he puts mail through your letterbox, please fit a letter box cage.
• If it’s not practical for you to keep your dog away from a postman delivering your mail, consider fitting a secure mailbox on the edge of your property.

London Assembly Requests Review of Dangerous Dogs Act

News regarding the request of a review is still eagerly awaited and we expect and hope that there will be positive news after the London Elections in May and the General Election in June.

The London Assembly agreed a motion, in December 2016,  calling on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request a formal review of the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991).

The Assembly believes the Act – which uses Breed Specific Legislation to prohibit certain types of dog - has not reduced dog bite incidents and fails to protect dog welfare.

Steve O’Connell AM, who proposed the motion said:

“This is about recognising the current policies designed to protect people from dangerous dogs are not fit for purpose, as well as improving animal welfare standards.

It’s important that, if the current system is not working, we look at other ways of handling what is a growing problem.

The consequences for victims of a dog attack can be devastating and I hope the relevant authorities take note of our motion.”

Leonie Cooper AM, who seconded the motion said:

“It’s abundantly clear that the Breed Specific Legislation isn’t effective. We need stronger, more extensive legislation to reduce the number of dog attacks and bring irresponsible owners to justice.

Government must work not only with the police and councils, but organisations such as Battersea Dogs & Cats Home too, to consider the best way to protect people from dangerous dogs and safeguard animal welfare. It’s reassuring to see we have cross party consensus over what is a really important issue.”

The full text of the Motion is:

“The Assembly notes that the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) is 25 years old this year. 

It is noted that the Metropolitan Police will destroy around 300 dogs that have been seized by its officers this year. 

The Status Dog Unit, a special team of police officers only dealing with dangerous dogs, has seen a 7% increase in seizures in 2016. 

The Act’s aim, to use Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) (as applied through s1) to prohibit certain types of dog has not reduced dog bite incidents or the number of prohibited types of dog. 

The Assembly accepts that BSL has not had a positive impact on improving human safety or protecting dog welfare.

The Assembly notes that other authorities have started to review and overturn BSL such as the Netherlands, Italy, and Lower Saxony, Germany and have identified other ways of reducing dog bite incidents. 

The Assembly calls on the Mayor to write to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs asking for a formal review of the legislation as proposed by the RSPCA and for London bodies such as the Metropolitan Police, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the stray dog services of the London Boroughs and relevant non-governmental organisations to be part of this review.”

Law Commission Submission Closing Date

Closing soon is your opportunity to submit your ideas on which areas of the law you think would benefit from reform.

The Law Commission questionnaire can be found online here -
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/13th-programme-of-law-reform-consultation/

You can ask the Law Commission to examine a specific issue of concern - for example, breed specific legislation - found within the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and its associated Amendments and Statutory Instruments, for their 13th Programme of Law Reform.

If you feel that there is a problem in an area of law that would benefit from reform, you can tell the Law Commission, they are interested in examining laws which are:

• causing substantial unfairness;
• widely discriminatory or disproportionately costly; or
• caused by laws or policies that are complex, hard to understand or have fallen out of step with modern standards.

"For a law to be fair - it must be capable of being understood."

The Law Commission is independent of any department and does not necessarily accord with the position of the Government of the day.

Send your completed questionnaire to:

 Email: programme@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk.

Our reply received from the Law Commission - November 2016:

Thank you for responding to our consultation regarding the Law Commission’s Thirteenth Programme of Law Reform. I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your email.

We will now carefully assess the details of your proposal on reforming the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The Law Commission is very grateful to you for the work that has been undertaken to produce your proposal.

We will contact you regarding the outcome of your proposal in due course.

Marking 25 Years of BSL UK 1991 ~ 2016

Online Survey-DDA Sentencing

Currently open is a short public survey seeking your views on whether the Government should change the maximum sentence for an aggravated offence (cases where injury is caused) under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) i.e. where someone allows a dog to be dangerously out of control and the dog injures or kills a person or an assistance dog (currently the legislation does not apply to assistance dogs - but this a due to change under the proposals currently before the House of Commons)
 
Amendments to the Act are before Parliament at the moment are included within the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill (clauses 98 and 99) 2013-2014
 
The Government undertook to take soundings, before the next Parliamentary stage of the Bill, on a change to the maximum sentence (under the DDA - section three - which applies to all breeds/types of dogs) which currently stands at a maximum of 2 years imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.
 
(It should be noted that a person convicted of causing death by using a dog as a weapon may already be convicted of manslaughter or murder and may already be given a sentence of life imprisonment.)
 
The survey applies to England and Wales only - ENDING on 1st September 2013.

To complete the online survey go to - https://consult.defra.gov.uk/animal-health-and-welfare/dda_dog-attacks_sentences_survey/

22Yr Anniversary of BSL UK

Today, the 12th August 2013, marks twenty two years since the introduction of breed specific legislation, contained within section one of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), as amended. This piece of law relates to England, Wales and Scotland. Northern Ireland also have had their own version since 1991.

Currently proceeding through the House of Commons is a Bill (once passed through stages these become laws) and within that Bill are far reaching amendments to the DDA, amendments which will not only affect those persecuted on account of their appearance, but also amendments which will affect all dogs of all breeds and types. Amendments we do not support - such as the extension of section three of the DDA and sadly instead of any move to even attempt to repeal BSL - it is to be played with in the wording - which we believe will cause more heartache, distress and potentially lead to the deaths of more innocent dogs targeted by failed law which should have by now been thrown in the mad law bin.

The breed specifics of the law will remain - dog law is being discussed in Westminster, there have been endless consultations and although there was widespread support to end BSL this hasn't been listened to.
The main animal welfare organisations, the ones who carry the clout, speak much about  'deed not breed' yet sadly there is no move in Westminster to change it, nor no big push to rid us of it after all this time - why is that? The words 'deed not breed' become empty and mean little if action doesn't back the strap line. We don't need attempts to try and make it run more smoothly - you can't improve what is so blatantly dismal and wrong in the first place.
It was a positive step forwards when national organisations actually came out and publicly signed up to the 'deed not breed' concept, which has been around since 1991 and maybe longer, but we need more and the dogs which continue to be persecuted need more.

The dogs keep dying, they keep getting seized, persecuted, labelled dangerous, and those volunteers on the front line answering the phones and emails EVERY WEEK, listening to people breaking down in tears, trying to explain how the crazy law works, involved in these ridiculous cases where dogs are judged on phenotype, looking at photos of dogs who will not make it because someone states they look wrong - well we're just left hanging on in there whilst the onslaught of BSL marches on here and it can and often does spread like a virus overseas.

One can't help but be wondering when do the Cavalry arrive to back-up the troops on the front line?Those volunteers busting a gut in the trenches, fire-fighting for their cause be it BSL, the sickening puppy farming situation, the dogs stacked up dying in the pounds as the rescues are at breaking point to name just a few of the major issues we have; if we had a flag it would have been flying upside down for some time now.  You would think and hope that the well equipped political wings of the big canine organisations and professions would not let this happen yet where the hell are they all-why can't they work together and go all out to make a big difference, a real change for the better?

Instead there is so much effort to extend section three of the legislation, what about BSL-we don't need the wording tinkering with you can't improve a failed concept, you can make it even more difficult though.

Why is there no big political push to end it; to work together for national educational programmes to prevent dog bite incidents and actually protect kids, adults and dogs alike?
Instead we have the government looking at increasing the penalties for aggravated offences - the headline is 'life in jail for dogs that kill' - failing to make clear that it will actually look at increasing the penalties for dogs that cause injury - that's any injury, section three is one of strict liability and the statistics thrown about actually refer to both dog 'bites' and 'strikes' all lumped together but don't let that little fact get in the way of a juicy headline in the clamber to be seen to be getting tough.

Deja vu for some of us; the push for action, the real issues being side-stepped, certain dogs demonised and continued on as the scape-goat, the terminology is familiar - 'danger dogs seized' 'banned dogs rounded up' we may as well be back in 1991 as we head for new legislation.

Why not focus on preventing people being injured by dogs-how about giving people the tools they need to know how to keep dogs and children safer for starters?
What of the parents of a child hurt by their own dog - is the best we can do to throw the parents in jail, does anyone think hey don't leave the baby alone with the dog, we don't want a prison sentence under the new law? Seriously, with all the knowledge we now have on animal behaviour, that's the best we can offer to people and dogs alike in 2013? Stiffer penalties, go to jail, job done, move on people.

It is said it is not politically correct to ask for repeal of BSL - when will that ever change?
It's been said for twenty two years now but nothing changes unless you are prepared to stand up and speak out, if not then why not is the question?
Dogs don't get to choose what they look like - if the best anyone involved can do is turn their back on this mess and mutter it's not politically correct then fine that's your choice but this is a case of it being better to have tried than not to have tried at all - because then you send out the message that this is wrong and smaller ripples can lead to waves.
If you condone BSL and you are someone, a department, organisation etc there for the welfare and defence of our dogs, you're in it for the wrong reasons and it would do our dogs a favour if you just stand down and let someone in there with some mettle who will take a stand for all dogs.

It's 2013 and so the killing continues, rescue dogs continue to be picked out as 'type' and not given a second chance of a new home, eg, Battersea Dogs Home confirmed that 155 dogs admitted as strays were destroyed during 2012 as if no owner comes forward and they are identified as 'type' by the Met. Police - they are put to death under BSL-just another aspect of the legislation.

Puppies continue to be held and caught up in awful legal situations - entangled under the far reaching arms of BSL, it's perfectly legal in this country to hold seized puppies in kennels through their critical development periods-the time when socialisation is key, then some months later, release them if not 'type' following their mainly physical assessment with the tape measure, into the big wide-world, that's if they're lucky. Half a litter can be destroyed as 'type' the other half released as not 'type' - makes sense this BSL, you really couldn't make this stuff up.

Dogs continue to be taken and held as 'type' whilst their owner go to court to try and save them - if they are 'lucky' they get to live the rest of their lives restricted on the register of exempted dogs - labelled as dangerous by society even though they have never put a paw wrong. No health insurance available, muzzled and leashed even in the vehicle, no freedom to interact with other dogs, treated like k9 outcasts by many, branded with a tattoo - marked by society as 'dangerous'. Some owners find out their housing does not allow exempted dogs and are forced to part with their dog or face eviction, some face hundreds of pounds in court and kennelling costs heaped on top of exemption costs; being processed through the system and thrown out the other end is for many a traumatic experience with consequences.

And, so on and on it goes, but as always, we say it is Not In Our Name - as the truth must be spoken and silent we will never be - we will always continue to help and advise where we can and how we can; providing a life-line for many dogs.

We, alongside many others who care and those who join as the awareness spreads, will continue to take a stand, speak out and campaign to end the madness that is breed specific legislation.

No To DDA Amendments-MP Template Letter

Say No To DDA Amendments which will affect all dogs.

Please use our new template MP letter for ideas or use as it is, more letters needed - voice your concerns - innocent dogs need you.

You can send a letter via post to the House of Commons or email your MP

To find out who your MP is  click here

 

Your MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

Dear

 

I am contacting you regarding the amendments planned for the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which have been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14 currently in progress in parliament.

 

I am very concerned that these amendments will unfairly incriminate responsible dog owners and their pet dogs and I do not support what is currently planned and before parliament.

 

I do not think that section three of the DDA should be extended to ‘any’ place – which I understand is for example inside my home and would apply to both aggravated and non-aggravated situations.

Under the legislation the legal definition of ‘dangerously out of control’ is: a dog is presumed to be such if on any occasion there are grounds for ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury to any person - whether or not any injury has happened.

 

The planned extension of the DDA to private property I feel could leave responsible owners open to malicious complaints (e.g. neighbour and family disputes) and not suitably protected from trespassers and intruders – anyone present on my property without my consent.

 

Where will I stand if a burglar/trespasser is in my garden and my dog runs out and barks at them – this could give cause for ‘reasonable apprehension’ under the extended DDA and I would be presumably on the wrong side of the law?

 

What if someone comes to read my electric/gas meter and then later complains my dog barked at them and they felt reasonable apprehension – my dog could be seized from my own home?

 

What about a dog running and baking in its own garden and a neighbour complains they felt reasonable apprehension’ and the dog is seized by a dog warden or the police whilst the complaint is investigated?

 

Offences where any injury has occurred are currently treated as one of strict liability; I feel that defences should be allowed for example if a dog is acting in self-defence.

 

Following a serious dog attack within a family unit it is often reported that the DDA is flawed as it doesn’t enable criminal prosecution and this is described as a ‘loophole’. But what would be the benefits of criminally prosecuting the parents of a child which has been bitten by their own family dog? This will not prevent dog injuries inside people’s homes – in my opinion; education is needed and is the way forward to prevent the majority of dog injuries inside the home environment and to encourage/promote responsible dog ownership.

 

Education is the key to responsible dog ownership, education prevents dog bites, it should be compulsory in schools forming part of the National Curriculum.

 

Additionally, I do not believe that barking or growling, with no actual contact, at an assistance dog should be allowed to lead to a criminal prosecution or civil proceedings as the amendments will permit if passed as law.

 

I also do not support the amending of the DDA so that when the court is deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court MUST consider whether the owner is ‘fit and proper’ and may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’. In my view the definition of what is ‘fit and proper’ is wide open to interpretation as are ‘any other circumstances’; for example, whether or not there is a garden, a dog owner's disability or having children is considered by the court and a pet dog is given a death sentence because of it.

There should not be a compulsory stipulation as to what the court must take into account, this is removing discretion from the court and is in my opinion open to misuse and will result in the death of more innocent pet dogs who are not a danger to anyone in my opinion.

 

Furthermore I understand that the DDA is to be amended to allow civil proceedings to be performed under all sections but with no legal aid to cover civil proceedings, many dog owners will have no means to defend themselves and to defend their dog from a possible death sentence e.g. to instruct a solicitor. Surely legal aid should be extended also for these cases.

 

This Bill fails to address the need to put the emphasis on the education to encourage responsible dog ownership and help prevent dog bite incidents, the desperate need to remove the breed specific element of the legislation which is causing suffering and mayhem-the repeal of which has been widely supported in previous consultations but totally ignored by government.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

 Repeal Breed Specific Law - Campaign Info.

No To DDA Amendments - Petition

Petition Against DDA Amendments - please sign the petition against the planned changes in dog law; add your name to the HM Government site e-petition.

Petition text:

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We the undersigned oppose the proposed amendments to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA).

We oppose extending section 3 to any place leaving dogs & their owners potentially criminalised in their own homes. ‘Dangerously out of control’ is any occasion a person has ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury whether or not the dog has actually injured a person.

Offences should not be of strict liability as is currently the case.

Barking/growling alone at an assistance dog should not result in proceedings.

We oppose any extension of powers to enter private property or seize a dog from private property without a warrant.

We object to amendments that a court MUST consider if the owner is ‘fit and proper’ & may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’.

 

BSL does nothing to protect the public, or address the problems of irresponsible owners/breeders.

Defendants should be innocent until proved guilty.

Legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings under the DDA & also the Dogs Act 1871.

Sign Here

Dangerous Dog Act - Amendments Planned

The government has published proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - the amendments are now underway; if passed as law, these amendments will affect not only the prohibited dogs but all breeds and types of dog in England and Wales.
 
The draft Dangerous Dogs (DD) Amendment Bill was recently published by Defra, shortly afterwards the EFRA committee launched a two week inquiry to invite written evidence followed by oral evidence specifically on the proposed Bill; they received 86 written responses.

Details of written evidence submitted to the EFRA Committee can be found here.

The draft DD Amendment Bill was expected to be in the Queen’s speech on 8^th May (meaning it will be one of several bills addressed in the next parliamentary session), but, it was not.

The proposed changes had appeared, without explanation within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing (ASCP) Bill which is a Home Office bill and was included in the Queen’s speech; on the government’s legislative agenda - it is now underway to become an Act – new legislation, which is far reaching, for all dogs and their owners.

The planned amendments to the DDA were published in the ASCP bill before EFRA had published its written report on the evidence it received. Previously the Home Affairs Committee had held an inquiry into this bill ending in January but this was before the amendments from the draft DDA bill were placed into this bill.

So in a nutshell;

·         an Inquiry ending in January 2013 was previously held into the ASCP Bill but at the time the DDA Amendments were not included in the bill

·         a draft Dangerous Dogs Amendment Bill was published by Defra on 9th April

·         a separate inquiry was held by the EFRA Committee - with a deadline of 22nd April

·         the Queen’s speech on 8th May included the ASCP Bill

·         the Government went ahead and placed the amendments within the ASCP Bill which was published on the 9th May

·         the EFRA committee published its report on 16th May on the pre-legislative inquiry it just held but the Amendments were already published

The ASCP Bill is now in progress – this is a large detailed bill where a relatively small portion relates to dogs - it could easily slip past undetected unless you were actually looking for it.

To follow the progress of the Bill click here - you will see that the second reading is due in the Commons on the 10th June 2013

You can read the Bill online here - Part 7 - specifically relates to ‘Dangerous Dogs’ – keeping dogs under proper control and whether a dog is a danger to public safety.

The text from the original draft DDA Amendment Bill has been changed as it’s moved from bill to bill – in reference to the ‘Householder defence’ – there is no longer the need for the owner to be present at the time of an incident in a building that is a dwelling (ie your home) - but this defence applies to the building only, not the garden etc. So presumably if a burglar is in your garden and your dog injures him or there are reasonable grounds your dog might - you are on the wrong side of the law.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill also contains the new provisions of Public Spaces Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices are also included in this Bill.

Currently we have Dog Control Orders which are to be repealed and replaced with Public Spaces Protection Orders. PSPO's – these will also be made by local authorities but not parish councils. There’s no limit to what a PSPO can command and they can remain for up to three years.

Community Protection Notice (CPN) will be issued by the police and local authorities, this is a new power for when there is ‘conduct of a persistent or continuing nature’. The CPN specify requirements to do specified things, cease doing specified things or to take reasonable steps to achieve specified results.

 

Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013

The Queen's Speech on May the 8th is reported to include the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013.

On the 9th April the Government published its draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill which aims to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), if passed this new legislation will affect dogs of all breeds/types.

Here we take a detailed look through the Bill and give our analysis on the sections-to read through the proposals you can view the draft Bill in its entirety with government explanatory notes online (see below).
The main points of the Bill are:

1) Extension of section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act:
 

Section three of the DDA, which applies to all breeds/types of dog, would be extended to apply to all places – to include private property e.g. within your home and garden. This extension would apply to England and Wales.
Section Three of the DDA currently creates a presumption that a dog is presumed to be dangerously out of control if there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so - with an aggravated offence being committed if the dog, whilst out of control, injures any person, regardless of the circumstances.

Offences where any injury has been caused are currently of strict liability; defences should be possible for dogs alleged to be ‘dangerously out of control’ e.g. when a dog is acting in self-defence - the planned changes do not address this at all.

The draft Bill would extend the law to make it a criminal offence for a dog to be “dangerously out of control” in any place. The definition of “dangerously out of control” remaining the same - when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injury any person whether or not a person is actually injured.

We do not support the extension of sec 3 to 'any' place.

The Bill also extends section three of the DDA with a new provision relating to assistance dogs, making it a criminal offence for a dog to be “dangerously out of control” when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injure any assistance dog, whether or not it actually does, if any injury is caused to an assistance dog whilst out of control an aggravated offence will have been committed.

An assistance dog is (defined by the Equality Act 2010 c173):

§  A dog which has been trained to guide a blind person

§  A dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person

§  A dog which has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability that consists of epilepsy or otherwise affects the person’s mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects

§  A dog of a prescribed category which has been trained to assist a disabled person who has a disability of a prescribed kind (not listed above).

We do not believe that non-aggravated offences should be extended to assistance dogs - e.g. a dog barking at an assistance dog could result in criminal or civil proceedings under the Amendment.

1a) Householder cases:

An exemption has been created in relation to trespassers on private property inside a dwelling – if the householder defence is in operation then no offence under sec. 3 has been committed.
But its application is not clear from how this section is worded – it seems to be that the dog’s owner or carer must be themselves physically present, for example in your home, whilst a trespasser is actually entering the building – so if you have a burglar entering your house whilst you are in it and your dog injures them defending you, you might have a defence.

If you the dog’s owner is not at home whilst there is a break in on your home - there is no defence - you have to be present at the time of the incident!

Also your garden isn’t stated - so if your dog injures or causes apprehension to a trespasser i.e. an intruder on your private garden/private attached land/outbuildings you may have committed a criminal offence if you dog even barks at them.

In our opinion extending ‘dangerously out of control’ to private property will leave dogs and their responsible owners vulnerable to vexatious complaints, not properly protected from trespassers and intruders, with dog owners being subject to legal hearings and potentially criminalised when their dogs are just acting as dogs do - not causing any harm or disturbing anyone - our dogs should be allowed to act as dogs do in our own homes.

2) Powers of entry and seizure:

Section1 (5) of the draft Bill extends the powers of entry and seizure – giving the right to enter private property and seize any dog which appears to be “dangerously out of control” without a warrant.

We do not support the extension of powers for the police or a local authority dog warden to enter private property or to seize a dog from private property e.g. our homes and enclosed gardens without a warrant, if the dog appears to be, or if it appears to have been 'dangerously out of control’.

3) Determination of ‘danger to public safety’:

When a dog is found guilty under sec 3 or sec 1 (prohibited types) the court can order a contingent destruction order as an alternative to a destruction order if satisfied that the dog would not constitute a ‘danger to public safety’. Once satisfied in the case of a prohibited type the court can order the dog is added to the Index of Exempted Dogs as an alternative to destruction.

The definition of what the court must consider has been given in the draft Bill as;

·         the character of the owner or keeper - whether this person is ‘fit and proper’

·         the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour

·         any other relevant circumstances
 

The definition of ‘any other relevant circumstances’ or a ‘fit and proper’ is not given and this will in our opinion be wide open to interpretation.

The same will also apply to section 4b applications before the court – where no legal aid is possible, hence as is currently the situation most cannot afford legal representation nor breed identification or behavioural assessment for the court to dispute 'type' and/or defend their dog if necessary.

This section of the amendment will apply to England, Scotland and Wales.

The notes to the draft Bill describe the Sandhu Judgement as ‘adverse’ – The Sandhu judgement was not in our opinion ‘adverse’. The High Court has examined and interpreted the DDA as it currently stands and confirmed that keeper is separate to owner – saving the lives of innocent dogs as the ruling has enabled exempted dogs to live with a nominated keeper if they are unable to stay with their registered owner.

In our opinion the draft Bill seeks now to destroy pet dogs by dictating to the court what they MUST consider when deciding whether to issue destruction order or CDO. Whether keepership will remain an option is unclear, but in our opinion this draft Bill is adverse and likely to lead to more deaths of innocent dogs that are no danger to anyone.

4) Civil Proceedings:

The draft Amendment will also amend the DDA to enable civil legal proceedings to be bought in respect of dogs under any enactment; this section is not clearly written and has not been given much coverage, nor did previous consultations ask for views on this, yet it would in our opinion have far reaching consequences unless legal aid were to be extended and given where destruction of a dog is at stake.

Legal aid is presently not available, therefore owners will not be able to properly defend themselves. It is unfair and unjust if a defence cannot be put to the courts as the owner cannot afford legal representation and expert assessment e.g. a behavioural report, for the courts – for example to demonstrate the temperament of their dog-just one requirement needed in order to avoid a death penalty for the dog.

If the current legislation is to be amended to allow for civil proceedings to be enacted under all sections then legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings.

Verdict:

We do not support the Amendments. Tragically, after so many years of failed abysmal legislation, these poorly drafted Amendments take what already does not work and make it staggeringly worse, the breed specific element is left to carry on causing mayhem, desperation and the countless deaths of innocent pet dogs, whilst nothing here will prevent dog bites or promote responsible dog ownership.

Further Information:

The draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013 with explanatory notes.

The Dangerous Dogs Act explained