Dangerous dogs' owners face two years in jail

[TrueBlueTerrier]

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/news ... ull/122913" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Dangerous dog attacks could see their owners jailed for up to two years but animal welfare campaigners and postal union CWU said yesterday more must be done.

New guidelines in effect from today are set to hammer dog owners in England and Wales with tougher sentences in the event of an attack, while new guidelines also cover possession of banned dog breeds.

An owner whose dog attacks the public will get up to 18 months in prison or as much as two years in the most extreme cases.

Judges would also consider deliberately goading a dog as an aggravating factor.

But the Sentencing Council said in most cases it expected to hand out community orders and fines, although owners could still risk up to six months in jail for letting their dog run amok among vulnerable people, even if no injuries were suffered.

"With increasing numbers of convictions for offences involving dangerous dogs in recent years, the new guideline will help ensure courts use their full powers when dealing with offenders," a Sentencing Council spokesman said.

But the animal welfare charity Blue Cross warned that tougher sentencing alone was not enough to prevent dog attacks.

"We feel that there is an urgent need for preventative action or dog attacks will continue to increase," the charity's director of external affairs Steve Goody said.

"We believe the introduction of useful, practical measures could be used specifically to target irresponsible dog owners before an attack happens," he said.

Postal union CWU health and safety officer Dave Joyce agreed that there still needed to be a change in the law "to get the full benefit of this change in sentencing," as there are far too few successful prosecutions in relation to the number of dog attacks.

"The change in sentencing is welcome but much more needs to be done to prevent attacks from happening in the first place and to encourage more responsible dog ownership," Mr Joyce said.

[DGP1]

An owner whose dog attacks the public will get up to 18 months in prison or as much as two years in the most extreme cases.

But because we're mostly attacked in private property...........what happens to us?

[fishtank]

But because we're mostly attacked in private property...........what happens to us?

What's this us crap DGP?
Me and you..we're covered...

Scotland:

Scotland now has appropriate legislation in force dealing with this hazard - The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 was introduced by MSPs Alex Neil (Central Scotland) and Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) - was passed by the Scottish parliament last April and received Royal Assent the following month. The provisions of the Act came into force across Scotland at the end of February.

Most of the new Act deals with the wider issues of tackling dangerous dogs in society, but, crucially, the Scottish Act tackles the key loophole in existing law, which has allowed so many owners to escape sanction when their dogs attack public-service workers.

The new Act's Section 10 ( Dangerous or unresponsive dogs) replaces the references in the 1991 Act to an offence being committed "if a dog is allowed to be dangerously out of control in a public place" or "a private place where it is not permitted to be" with the straightforward "any place."

Northern Ireland:

The Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) was granted Royal Assent on March 8 and its provisions are being rolled out across Northern Ireland.

Here, the new law - which was introduced by Northern Ireland's Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development Michelle Gildernew - amends the 1983 Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order. As in Scotland, much of the reform deals with the wider problems caused by dangerous dogs in the community, but it addresses the specific issue of attacks that take place on private property by explicitly exempts the owner from prosecution only in cases of criminal trespass.

Even Wales is getting it's act together...

On July 17 the Welsh Government announced that it will be consulting on the Control of Dogs Bill in the autumn which will propose key changes to current Dangerous Dogs legislation. This is a very welcome development which should hopefully bring in better dog laws to Wales, in line with domestic legislation already passed in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

It's only our English colleagues that are screwed,
For them the only recourse is the Dogs Act 1871.

The Dogs Act 1871 (DA) does apply to all places, a magistrate may order the owner of a dog to control it and if the owner fails to do this, the dog could be destroyed and the owner fined £1,000.

[DGP1]

FT, we're all in this together

Even though we don't get a share of the 'Streets of Gold', our English colleagues do provide us with Eastenders (even if we do have to watch it through the window).

[brothermagrew]

Section 10 of the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010.

Amends section 3(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to remove the reference to “any public place” and replace it with “any place” so that it becomes a criminal offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place.

The effect of the amendment to the 1991 Act is that the person who is in charge of the dog may be criminally liable should their dog attack an individual, even if this occurs within the person’s own home or other private place where the dog is permitted to be. An aggravated offence is committed if the dog injures any person.

With regards to the serving of a DCN.

A number of public and private sector workers may require access to private property in the course of their duties. Access could be required to deliver mail, seek access to the home to read gas meters, carry out health visitor appointments, or to provide a home help service.

If a worker accesses a property to deliver mail and is met by a dog who is not under the watchful eye of its owner and to all intents and purposes has been left to its own devices, demonstrates overly protective and territorial aggressive behaviour towards the worker by constantly growling and snarling without provocation, the authorised officer may after careful deliberation decide that the two-part test under section 1 of the Act had been met and that it would be appropriate to serve a DCN.

While it could be argued that it is common for a dog’s instinct to take over, and to demonstrate defensive behaviour when faced with someone unfamiliar entering the property, dog owners must take responsibility to ensure those workers who deliver a vital service for their communities are not subjected to having to deal with threatening or aggressive dogs when undertaking their duties on private property.

Dependant on the severity of the incident, it may be appropriate to consider the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 if the dog is dangerously out of control.