Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Ian McParland

1. Author’s Background

I am the founder and previous head of the Metropolitan Police Status Dogs Unit.

I have been a dog legislation officer (DLO) since January 1992 (the first DLO Course).

I have personally been involved in the seizure, retention or prosecution of in excess of 4000 dogs dealt with by the various Dangerous Dogs Acts

I now work independently as an expert, instructed by both defence and prosecution.

I was the course instructor on the most recent Police DLO course held in Derbyshire in March 2013.

2. Do Defra’s draft clauses translate the Government’s intentions on dog control into clear, proportionate, and effective legislation?

The proposed legislation has a number of errors which will cause practical problems for enforcers and lead to problems within the prosecution process.

3. Clause 1 (2) (a) (ii) “or assistance dog” whilst this is welcome, under current case law:

(R v Bezzina, R v Codling, R v Elvin [1994] 99 CrAppRep 3)

4. The offence of being “dangerously out of control” is one of strict liability with no “mens rea” required and therefore even if the assistance dog launches an attack on another dog first, if the second (victim) dog retaliates or defends itself the owner will have committed an offence. This scenario has happened twice in the last six months to my knowledge.

5. Clause 1 (2) (b)

6. This defence is unnecessarily complicated, the existing legislation is already criticised for being overly complicated and Police Forces have to make arrangements to have an officer (Dog Legislation Officer) especially trained. Do not expect the average foot duty officer to understand this clause in this form.

7. It also fails to meet the average person’s requirements,

8. Example: a burglar breaks in and is bitten by the dog when no one is at home, there is no defence and with current case law the owner will have committed an offence.

9. Example: a householder hears someone breaking into a garden shed and goes into the garden with the dog, the dog bites the burglar, again no defence.

10. From a welfare perspective this may lead people who whilst at home habitually leave doors to gardens open during the summer for their dog to stop doing so. This will have a negative effect on dog welfare.

Those with dog flaps or open doors for the dog to relieve itself when out for some time may no longer provide this facility for their dog.

11. Clause 5 (b)

12. A power of seizure is given, however no power of entry is given, police would therefore have to rely upon existing powers such as S 17 Police and Criminal Evidence Act,(saving life or limb or preventing serious damage to property) this may be challenged at Court.

13. As drafted it is also an “at the time” power of seizure,

14. Example: A dog that resource guards it’s meal and has no other aggression problems, if the dog has been eating it’s meal, four year old visitor approaches and dog snaps at child causing a bite to the face. Police are called; arrive 15 minutes later, by which time dog is no longer eating. Dog is laying quietly in its bed having it’s stomach rubbed by owner. The behavioural triggers that led to the bite are now completely non-existent and the dog cannot be said to be “dangerously out of control” at that time. The power of seizure has gone and the officers would need to obtain a warrant from a Magistrate. During which time the owner would be completely at liberty to take the dog and go anywhere they wished with it.

15. This would be resolvable for a nice family and nice dog but consider if the owner was a habitual criminal and the dog had caught the child in a vital artery, same circumstances, same bite just a different bite location and the child has died. Whilst everyone would expect the dog to be seized no power to do so would exist. This owner similarly could leave and the dog may just “run away”. Everyone relies upon the police in these circumstances finding a way to deal with the situation, this is unreasonable.

16. The Clause should be amended to add “or recently have been” after the words “officer to be” in clause 1A

17. Clause 2 (3) What is going to be the test of temperament? What does Parliament mean by temperament? Who is going to carry out the temperament test on behalf of the Court. Will it be a fully qualified behaviorist (very expensive) or perhaps an accredited examiner for the kennel club good citizen scheme? Where will the test take place? In the “secret” police holding kennels? In public? This is a laudable idea but the difficulty of standardising the criteria and assessment is extremely complicated and may slow the prosecution process down (whilst experts are sought) leading to higher costs and poor dog welfare when kennel stays are extended.

18. Clause 2 (4) It is very welcome that the 4B process will be usable in circumstances previously unavailable. However proper safeguards should be put in place to prevent use by police to avoid the Crown Prosecution service being involved. Some Police Forces are now routinely making applications for destruction without prosecution because they simply don’t trust the CPS to deal efficiently with the case (Merseyside police are an example, they have stated they get quicker results and more euthanasia’s using this method for the majority of their cases, other Forces have similar policies)

19. In some Police Force areas this is so prevalent that offenders who by any normal test either public interest or evidentially would be prosecuted (previous convictions for drugs, firearms etc.) are not being prosecuted in order for the Police to save money and short cut the proper system. They simply do not trust the CPS to deal with prosecutions efficiently.

20. Do the proposed measures provide a sufficient legislative base to tackle irresponsible dog ownership?

21. No, this legislation continues to be reactive. Additional clauses should be added to allow the police and local authorities to act before an injury occurs. Not all will be prevented, but the ability to issue improvement notices, similar to those under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 would go a great way to dealing with problems before they result in injury.

22. If not, which additional measures should be brought into law?

As above (21)

23. Are any of the proposed measures unnecessary or counterproductive?

As above

April 2013