The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (known as the DDA)
Learning about the DDA is often a shock to many dog owners. They don’t realise the possible consequences of their dog injuring (that could be scratch or a bruise!) another person or assistance dog. Here I try to summarise the legislation as it stands. There has recently been lots of debate about the failings of this legislation and we hope that it will change.
The original DDA was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997, which took away the requirement for mandatory destruction. Further amendments then came about via the Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime Policing Act 2014.
The amendments created a new offence for attacks on assistance dogs, an increase in prison sentences for aggravated Section 3 offences (where the victim is injured or killed), a new fit and proper person test to assess the suitability of the person in charge of the dog, abolition of the requirement in Section 3 for it to be in a public place or a non-public place where the dog isn’t permitted to be and it introduced the Householder case defence for Section 3 cases.
Section 3 of the DDA applies to any dog. It asks “was the dog dangerously out of control” ie were there grounds for reasonable apprehension of injury to a person or assistance dog. The following considerations would then be taken into account..
- Public interest factors
- Relevant guidance (Defra’s Dangerous Dogs Law :Guidance to Enforcers dated March 2009)
- Any alternative disposal (such as Dogs Act 1871 or an Acceptable Behaviour Contract
If it is deemed that Section 3 is appropriate, then an offence may have been committed by the owner, or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog (this could be a dog walker?).
This is a criminal offence with strict liability. This means there are no mitigating circumstances unless appealing the sentence. However, a case known as Robinson Pierre of 2013, the judge did acknowledge that Section 3 was not an offence of “absolute liability” and he allowed an appeal where Police Officers had caused the incident in question.
Sentences can be severe, can be custodial or a significant fine. There may also be a ban on keeping animals where appropriate. The dog can also be made the subject of a Destruction Order.
Many owners will appeal and engage the services of a dog behaviourist to assess the dog and owner and to then prepare a report for the court. If the report deems the dog not to be a risk to the public and the owner is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog, the judge can allow the appeal. This means that a Contingent Destruction Order is imposed on the dog which may have certain conditions such as always being on a lead or must be muzzled in public.
Section 1 Breed Specific Legislation
Parliament says that certain types of dog pose a threat to public safety. In 1991, Section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act introduced Breed Specific Legislation for the the first time in the Uk and it prohibited possession of 2 types of dog: the Pit Bull Terrier and the Japanese Tosa. 2 further types were added later: the DogoArgentino and the Fila Braziliera.
Under Section 5(5), there’s a presumption that if the prosecution say that the dog is one to which Section 1 applies then it shall be presumed it is of such a type unless the accused proves that it isn’t. This reversal of the burden of proof is extremely unusual in criminal proceedings.
There is an Exemption Scheme which is now contained in the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015 Sl 138 which came into force in March 2015. There are various conditions that must be adhered to, such as, muzzling, insurance, neutering etc.
The maximum penalty for a Section 1 offence is a fine of up to £5000 and/or 6 months in prison. For the dog, there’s a presumption in favour of destruction unless it can be proven on the balance of probabilities that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety and that the owner can pass the “fit and proper person” test.
Dogs will often be seized and held in police kennels until the case is resolved. A vet and a behaviourist may be required to firstly “type” the dog ie confirm whether it conforms to the breed type and then to assess its temperament and the suitability of the owner.
Should you find yourself in a position where you may be charged with any of these offences, I would strongly advise that you contact a good specialist dog law solicitor.