Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended 1997) gives protection to the public from a dog of any type or breed which is dangerously out of control in a public place. This includes any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person, whether or not it actually does so. The Act also makes it an offence to allow a dog to enter a private place where it has no right to be and while there injure any person (or while there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person).

Where a dog does not cause injury but an offence is committed, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to 6-months or a fine of up to £5,000 or both. If an aggravated offence is committed (i.e. a direct injury to any person is caused by the dog) in a public place - or a private place the dog was not permitted to be - then, where the case is heard by the Crown Court, the fine is unlimited and the maximum sentence of imprisonment increased to two years.

However, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not apply where a dog is permitted to be on private premises. In these cases The Dogs Act 1871 applies including in and around a private house. Any person can make a complaint under the 1871 Act to a magistrates courts that a dog is dangerous.

Where a magistrates' court makes an order under the Dogs Act 1871 directing a dog to be destroyed it may also, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 -

(a) appoint a person to undertake its destruction and require any person having custody of the dog to deliver it up for that purpose; and

(b) if it thinks fit, make an order disqualifying the owner for having custody of a dog for such period as is specified in the order.

Any person who fails to comply with an order under the 1871 Act to keep a dog under proper control or deliver it up for destruction under the 1989 Act is liable for a fine not exceeding £1,000 and the court may also disqualify that person from having custody of a dog. The strength of the Dogs Act 1871 is that, as the civil standard of proof applies, an order may be made by the court on the balance of probabilities that a dog is dangerous.

In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, 177 people were found guilty in England of failure to keep a dog under proper control under the 1871 Dogs Act as amended. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 a further 30 people were found guilty of offences stemming from incidents occurring on private property where there dog had no right to be. If you wish to find more statistics on dog attacks, I would suggest that you contact the Home Office as they are the Government department responsible for collecting these figures.

In addition, where an attack has taken place on private premises it may be possible for a person who has been attacked by a dog to initiate civil proceedings to claim damages on the basis that the person owning or controlling the dog was negligent. Where a person has been invited onto premises by the occupier then that occupier may become liable for any injury suffered by the visitor under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. This duty generally covers the state of the premises, but has been held to extend to cover damage caused by animals present on those premises. The Animals Act 1971 also provides that in certain circumstances the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knew it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained.

Finally, to address your question about breaching common law responsibility, if a person feels that their local serving official has been negligent of their duties they have every right to take this up locally with the governing body.

I hope that this letter addresses your concerns.

A LETTER FROM DEFRA 19th December 2006

RE: ATTACKS BY DOGS

Thank you for your e-mail of 1 December to Defra regarding attacks by dogs. I have been asked to reply.

Yours sincerely,

Defra - Customer Contact Unit

LINKS TO SITES OFFERING ADVICE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_attack Information and advice on dog attacks and their avoidance..

http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/dogs.htm Advice for cyclists.

http://walking.about.com/od/medfirstaid/a/dogattack.htm Advice for walkers.

http://www.intute.ac.uk/healthandlifesciences/  Various leaflets aimed at owners mainly.  

http://www.newtownabbey.gov.uk/  General advice

THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT - 1991

 This is a badly named and thought out act that is at once complex and yet misses many very important points. It attempts to put some control on dogs and their owners, without defining just what those controls really are. Enquiries as to these definitions usually get the reply, “Consult a solicitor,” thus leaving interpretation up to the legal profession - why bother with an act in the first place - just make it a free (or fee) for all!
Perhaps the weakest part of the act is the matter of “control”. It refers to “dangerously out of control” when perhaps “not under adequate control” might be better. Unlike in many parts of America there is no discussion on the type of lead, a Rottweiller on a 4m “reel” type lead can never be considered under “adequate control”. It could kill a child before the “controller”  had a chance to react. Also the force applied by a 70 kilo dog accelerating over 4 meters might pull one’s are out of its socket! The Minister has the right to define control, but never seems to have done so and the local police are almost always totally ignorant of the act and what their powers and responsibilities are.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/ukpga_19910065_en_1
HOME