Dangerous Dogs Update
DECEMBER 2014
DANGEROUS DOGS UPDATE
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which came into effect on 13/5/14, has introduced a number of changes to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, by virtue of sections 106 &107.
Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, “Keeping dogs under proper control”, now reads as follows, (changes in italics):-
3. (1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in any place in England or Wales (whether or
not a public place)-
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person or assistance dog,
an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
(1A) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case which is a householder case.
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) “a householder case” is a case where-
(a) the dog is dangerously out of control while in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or is both), and
(b) at that time-
(i) the person in relation to whom the dog is dangerously out of control (“V”) is in, or is entering, the building or part as a trespasser, or
(ii) D (if present at the time) believed V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.
Section 76(8B) to (8F) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (use of force at place of residence) apply for the purposes of this subsection as they apply for the purposes of subsection (8A) of that section (and for those purposes the reference in section 76(8D) to subsection (8A)(d) is to be read as if it were a reference to paragraph (b)(ii) of this subsection).
(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner
of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
(3) is repealed.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under that subsection is liable-
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the relevant maximum specified in subsection (4A)
(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4)(b), the relevant maximum is-
(a) 14 years if a person dies as a result of being injured;
(b) 5 years in any other case where a person is injured;
(c) 3 years in any case where an assistance dog is injured (whether or not it dies).
Interpretation
- Liability now arises from having a dog dangerously out of control in a private as well as a public place.
- But no liability for the dangerously out of control dog where the dog is in, or partly in a dwelling, or part thereof, that confronts a trespasser already in, or entering the dwelling, or part thereof; and/or
- no liability where the owner, or person in charge, (if present at the time), of the dangerously out of control dog believes that a trespasser is already in or entering the dwelling, or part thereof; provided that
- the degree of force used by the dog in defending the dwelling against the trespasser does not become grossly disproportionate in the circumstances.
- Where another part of a building in which D dwells is an internally accessible place of work, that, too, is treated as part of a building that is a dwelling;
- as is a vehicle or vessel.
- A genuine and sober, (albeit mistaken), belief that a dwelling is under threat from a trespasser justifies the use of a dog, or dogs, to use reasonable force in the defence of that dwelling.
The revised penalty provisions do not apply to offences committed before 13/5/14.
The power of seizure by an enforcement officer, such as a dog warden, is extended to any dog which appears to be dangerously out of control in a private place.
An assistance dog is defined in section 173 of the Equality Act 2010 as a dog trained to provide assistance to a deaf or blind person or certain other specified categories of person with a disability.
In Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority v First-tier Tribunal (SocialEntitlement Chamber) [2014] 158(6) S.J. 37,CA (Civ. Div.), it was said that a dog is “dangerously out of control”, re s. 10(3) of the 1991 Act, if there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person; so that if a dog is behaving aggressively towards a person, there will almost always be such grounds.
In R v Robinson-Pierre [2014] 1 Cr.App.R.22, CA, it was stated that whilst section 3(1) of the 1991 Act creats a strict liability offence, the prosecution are nonetheless required to prove that an act or omission of 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, or person in charge, 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.
So, for instance, where there is evidence of provocation on behalf of the Complainant, the Defendant should be absolved. Likewise, a Complainant's dog clearly instigating aggression towards the Defendant's creates a triable issue.
Destruction and disqualification orders
Section 4(1) has a new subsection (1B) inserted as follows:-
(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A)(a), when deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court-
(a) must consider-
(i) the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, and
(ii) whether the owner of the dog, or person for the time being in charge of it, is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog, and
(b) may consider any other relevant circumstances.
Edward Bailey
THE CRIMINAL TEAM
Jason Beal
Nigel Lickley QC
Paul Rowsell
Garth Richardson
Nicholas Bradley
Barrie van den Berg
Rupert Taylor
Edward Bailey
Ramsay Quaife
Joanna Martin
Piers Norsworthy
Kelly Scrivener
Emily Cook
Julia Cox
Sally Daulton
Sarah Vince
Scott Horner
Devon Chambers
3 St Andrew Street
Plymouth
PL1 2AH
01752 661659