Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Jessica Thomas-Day

I write to yourselves regarding the lack of criminal law that should provide protection for our community against dangerous dogs.

Icy is two years old and was attacked in our neighbours garden by their west highland terrier. The dog has ripped off half her eyelid, which has been anchored and stitched with micro stitches to her eyeball, the skin the dog bite off contained two thirds of her eyelashes (which will are now missing forever) and she is scarred to the top and the side of her eye, along with the added concern that she is at higher risk of eyesight complications because of the damage sustained to her eye was done at a crucial development stage of her sight. Icy is now under the care of GOS Hospital until she is eighteen, we have to wait for further surgery until she has finished growing and then they will operate again.

This took place on 24 July at which time the police were called and we were informed that they could not assist us due to the attack being on private property. The case was closed. 

I feel that the police have not only let my family down but the wider community, this dog attacked without any warning whilst being offered a treat (something it was designed for). This dog walks the streets with no one knowing just how dangerous he can be. As far as the law is concerned as it hadn’t previously attacked; it is still not deemed dangerous. 

For these reasons I would like to discuss the situation with yourself, on the basis that whilst I am disgusted with the Police’s behaviour, there is no criminal law which covers dog attacks in its own property. This dog attacked once and as a result in the massive whole in the law it can attack again and again. It is still not deemed dangerous even after ripping off my little girls eyelid. 

Clearly there is quite a lot of interest in Dog Attacks at present and I am calling on your help to consider a change in the 1991 Dogs Act to propose an “all inclusive” law for all breeds and areas (public and private). This won’t stop dog’s first victim but would stop 2nd, 3rd and 4th attacks from happening.

In answer to some of your questions on the proposed changes:

1. I feel strongly that an overhaul of the law (lack of) regarding dogs is very much needed. A criminal law needs to be in place to cover all areas and all dogs. What is dangerous on the street ought to be deemed dangerous in a garden. A “Dog Owner” is that of choice and with that choice comes a total responsibility of the animal, including when it attacks and at present there is a major loophole in the criminal law.

2. Status dogs I have not personally found a problem with. I do know that as soon as a breed is associated with thugs it is not long before another breed will be selected, therefore creating an ever moving trend. I do however believe with so much media attention on Status dogs, many other aggressive dogs fall into “good pet” categories, a seemingly inaccurate account.

3. I believe Micro Chipping will have absolutely no effect on a dog’s behaviour and will only solve the problem of stray and lost dogs at best. Most responsible dog owners already chip their animals. Something which I am sure the Westy that attacked Icy had had done already. It would provide only the location of the attack not stop it.

4. Extending the 1991 Act to include private property I believe is needed. If a human was to make an attack; it’s location would have no bearing. I realise that not all dog incidents are attacks but those that result in the victim being admitted to hospital should be included in a criminal law. this would not stop a dog’s first attack but it would work towards saving second and third ... victims. Also with an increased number of dangerous dogs being destroyed the opportunity for those dog’s to go on to breed and pass on potentially aggressive genes would also be significantly reducing the number of harmful dog’s in our community.

The number of Postal workers attacked is in the thousands each year 

5. Regarding education; whilst in theory this could be an option to sit alongside law extensions, I am unsure as to how practical it is. I know that in our case, Wendy Butler, the dog’s owner would consider herself an already educated woman. There are already numerous puppy classes available and yet attacks are on the increase.

6. I feel that whilst not solving the countries problems, I believe that if breeding regulations were able to be tightened, this would in the long term provide better bred dogs, ones with out in-breeding, genetic problems, disorders, bad temperaments. Crossing breeding for the moment seems to be very fashionable, with new breeds such as puggles and labradoddles appearing very regularly with no real knowledge of what is being produced or bought. 

To conclude I believe an “all inclusive” would help reduce subsequent attacks, put greater onus on the dog owner to not only have control of their dog but also have a well trained dog. I believe that the law would not invade anymore rights than current Human laws. There has been discussion on how this would work regarding protection of property, I feel the answer is simple; if you are in an area where you are allowed to be then the dog and owner are accountable.

I think we need to be asking: 

How many of the hospitalised victims were in fact attacked on the dog’s own land?

And subsequently how much this costs the NHS each year?

How many Postal workers are attacked each year, just doing their job? And of those; How many were re-occurring dog attacks? 

July 2012