DANGEROUS DOGS ACTS 1991 & 1871

 21. Feb. 2010. – 12:22:58

Owning a dog is a major responsibility although we can all recall incidents where such responsibility was apparent by its absence.

A couple of months ago a young man appeared charged under that cobbled together in a hurry knee jerk legislation known as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. His or rather an absent relative`s  Alsation had escaped through a hole in the garden fence and run amok in a nearby park. No harm physical was caused but a concerned dog walker called police and the dog was restrained and later returned to the proxy owner who was charged essentially with having a dog out of control. He pleaded guilty and during his mitigation....he was unrepresented.........questions were put to him about the status of the animal which it turned out had been trained and used by its owner as a guard dog at an industrial site. My colleagues and I rejected the CPS`s application to order destruction of the dog but wished to impose controls particularly an order that it be on a lead and muzzled when in a public place. However after consultation with all the law books on her desk our legal adviser told us that since there had been no complaint under the DOGS ACT OF 1871 such action was unlawful. The case could have been adjourned for consideration for such a "complaint" to be lodged. We decided on a pragmatic approach to end the matter then and there. He was fined £100, costs of £85 and the iniquitous £15 "victim surcharge". He also gave what was clearly explained to him by the chairman a non legally binding undertaking to muzzle the animal and have it on a lead in public places. He was advised that that undertaking we considered as substantial mitigation, noted by the legal adviser, the breaking of which in itself would not be illegal but would be a factor for consideration if he appeared on a similar matter in the future.

Section 2 Dogs Act 1871
"Any court of summary jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, and if it appears to the court having cognizance of such complaint that such dog is dangerous, the court may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed."
This extract from the Dogs Act 1871 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.