dangerous dogs law: leading us down the wrong path?
TRANSCRIPT
Dangerous dogs law: leading us down the wrong path?
Lydia Bleasdale-Hill, University of LeedsJill Dickinson, Sheffield Hallam University
Overview• Historical development of legislation in this area
– The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991– The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014
• The intentions behind such legislation:– responsibilising owners; and – enhancing public safety
• Two aspects of legislation will be examined in detail: – type-specific legislation; and – the extension of owner-liability for dangerous dogs from
public to private spaces
Historical development of dangerous dogs legislation: an overview
• Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 introduced:– an offence of a dog being dangerously out of
control in a public place (s.3(1))
– type-specific legislation (s.1(1))
• DDA has been heavily criticised e.g. – “a synonym for any unthinking reflex legislative
response to media hype” (Hood, 2000 at 282)
• BUT subsequent legislation has not addressed these criticisms...
The extension of liability from public to private spaces
• As a general rule, only public spaces were covered by the earlier legislation: "any street, road or other place (whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access“ (s.10(2) DDA 1991)
• Resulted in operational difficulties
• A distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ places had to be drawn see e.g. Fellowes v Crown ProsecutionService [1993] WL 964524; R v Bogdal [2008] EWCA Crim 1
The extension of liability from public to private spaces
• The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014
• Extended liability for ‘dangerously out of control’ dogs from public places to private places exceptin 'householder cases' where:– the dog is in or partly in a building, or part of a
building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both), and
– attacks someone who is either:- a trespasser; or- who the owner of that building believes to be a trespasser.
The extension of liability from public to private spaces
• Clearly, what constitutes a "dwelling" is key BUT the Act provides no definition– ‘the definition of the dwelling is widely understood in
English law; that it refers to the usual place of residence of a person and there is no need to provide a separate definition of dwelling in this legislation' (DEFRA, 2013)
– Crime and Courts Act 2013
– Public Order Act 1986, s.8
– Case-law• 'Dwelling' is a flexible term, a question of degree depending on
how the building is used/other relevant evidence (Laird, 2013)
Is the legislation fit for purpose?
• Do the following aspects of the dangerous dogs legislation:
– type-specific controls; and
– extension of liability from public to private spaces
• meet the primary aims of successive governments, namely to:
– responsibilise owners; and
– increase public safety?
Responsibilising owners
• Does extending liability of owners to private spheres responsibilise owners?– where does the 'dwelling' begin and end?
– lack of public awareness in respect of both the changes made and their effect• 33% are unaware of the changes in the law
• only 23% report of those who are aware of the changes report managing their dogs differently within the home as a result
• 33% (misunderstanding the changes) have modified how they manage their dogs in public
Statistics provided by National Animal Welfare Trust, 2015
Responsibilising owners
• Does type-specific legislation responsibilise dog-owners?– criticised for being over-inclusive
• ‘by subjecting all members of the target breed to regulation regardless of prior behaviour; that is…it reaches both dangerous and docile members of the target breed'. (Hussain, 2006)
– criticised for being under-inclusive• only certain types banned
• difficulties in determining breed
– risks encouraging dangerous dogs issues underground• 'their pariah status make[s] them desirable" (Harding, 2010)
– nature v nurture debate
Increasing public safety
• Does extending liability of owners to private spheres increase public safety?– lack of public awareness in respect of the changes
made and their effect– who is a 'trespasser'?
• removes those with 'malign intent' from the protection of the law
– 'perverse incentive for people to keep dangerous dogs on their property for protection' (Liberty, 2013)
– legislative changes could be used to increase public safety if they instead focused on the prevention of dogs from attacking in first place
Increasing public safety
• Does type-specific legislation responsibilise dog-owners?
– type-specific legislation retained because of risks such dogs may pose (eg Collier, 2006)
– perceived lack of alternative options
– further research/data needed to root out causes not symptoms
Conclusion
• Type-specific legislation:
– doesn't increase public safety
– is potentially damaging to both owners and dogs
• Extending law to private sphere:
– creates confusion in expectations
• Need for:
– consolidating legislation;
– research to examine motivations of dog owners; and
– supporting cultural change
References• C. Hood 'Assessing the Dangerous Dogs Act: When Does a
Regulatory Law Fail?' (2000) Public Law Sum, 282-305, at 282• National Animal Welfare Trust One Year On – Are Changes to
the Dangerous Dogs Act Effective? http://www.nawt.org.uk/media-centre/owners-think-dangerous-dogs-act-remains-ineffective
• K. Laird 'Conceptualising the Interpretation of ‘Dwelling’ in Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968' [2013] Criminal Law Review8, 656-673, as cited by L. Bleasdale-Hill ‘"Our Home is Our Haven and Refuge - A Place Where We Have Every Right to Feel Safe": Justifying the Use of Up to "Grossly Disproportionate Force" in a Place of Residence’ [2015] Criminal Law Review, 6, 407-419);
• S. Harding 'Status Dogs and Gangs', (2010) Safer Communities9 (1) 30 at 30
References
• S. Gray Hussain ‘Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific Legislation Won’t Solve the Dangerous Dogs Dilemma’ (2006) Fordham Law Review Vol.74(5): 2847 at 2863
• Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill: Government Response to the Committee's First Report of Session 2013-14 September 2013, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru/637/63704.htm
• S. Collier ‘Breed‐Specific Legislation and the Pit Bull terrier: Are the Laws Justified?’ (2006) Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 1, 17-22, at 20-21
• Liberty’s Report Stage Briefing on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill in the House of Commons (October 2013), https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty-s-Report-Stage-Briefing-on-the-ASBCP-Bill-in-the-House-of-Commons-Oct-2013_0.pdf
Contact details
• Lydia Bleasdale-Hill:
Tw: @Parkendlydia
• Jill Dickinson:
Tw: @Jill_Dickinson1