Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by Sophie Joy Zoghbi

Further to your draft legislation published on 9 April 2013 aimed at tackling dangerous dogs I wish to submit the following as evidence/comments on the proposals:

Clause 1—“Assistance Dogs”

I believe that this is a good amendment as assistance dogs need protection.

Clause 1—Keeping Dogs under Proper Control

Regarding the extension of the Act to cover private property and with reference to “a householder case”, the Bill provides for a defence if the owner or person in charge of the dog is attacked by a trespasser in the home and a dog reacts to protect the owner/person in charge. However what happens if the attacker is not a trespasser but someone that lives in the house, (such as a spouse or partner in a domestic violence situation) or an invited guest? If the dog then reacts to protect its owner from a non-trespasser, it appears that there is no defence available. This should be clarified and adjusted to provide a defence in this situation.

It also appears that there is no available defence if an incident happens in the garden, for example, if a dog defends his home against a burglar but this happens in the garden rather than the house. This makes no sense and the Bill should be amended to incorporate a defence for an incident which takes place in the garden as well as in a Building.

Finally with regard to this clause, the defence seems to apply only if a trespasser enters the property whilst the owner is present. The owner or person in charge should also be protected from court proceedings if a trespasser enters the property whilst the owner is absent. It stands to reason that a large number of break-ins and burglaries occur whilst the owner is out, and if a dog reacts to protect his owner’s property whilst the owner is not there, under this draft it appears that there is no defence for the dog or the owner. This needs to be amended, as it makes no sense to provide for a defence for an attack against a trespasser but with the proviso that the owner must be in the actual building at the time. This seems to go against the spirit of this exemption, and is wholly unfair.

Clause 2—Whether a Dog is a Danger to Public Safety

This amendment says it must be taken into account whether the owner is a “fit and proper person” in order to decide whether or not the dog is a danger to the public. This is inherently unfair and a retrograde step away from the spirit of the 1997 Amendment which sought to eliminate the need for a destruction order on a dog which had done nothing wrong. If the dog has been deemed not a danger to the public then why should he have to die, simply because his owner is not considered fit and proper? This is unnecessary and counterproductive. There is no need to destroy the dog when there is the provision for him to live with a keeper who is fit and proper. If someone is not fit and proper to own a dog then that owner can be disqualified from having a dog; there is no need to destroy an innocent dog.

The next point of concern in clause 2 is (b) “may consider any other relevant circumstances”. This too wide, open to interpretation and could lead to discrimination. An owner could lose their dog (who had already been deemed no threat to the public) for a reason such as being disabled, having a child, or being unemployed. This is discriminatory, unfair, subjective and open to abuse.

Subsection 4—The Amendment of Section 4B to Enable Civil Proceedings to be Brought in Respect of Dogs Seized under any Enactment

This is good in the sense that someone of previous good character may avoid a criminal record, however it also means of course that legal aid would not be available in the cases where civil proceedings were being brought. I would suggest that legal aid be extended to civil law in these cases. This would otherwise be patently unfair to deny many owners the chance to defend their case as without legal aid, many people would be unable to afford the necessary behavioural experts and lawyers required for their to defence and to save their dog from destruction.

Other Points

There have been no measures announced in this Bill to make unregistered breeding a crime, and neither has there been any move to repeal Breed Specific Legislation. This is disappointing on both counts. It is backyard breeding which is the main cause of irresponsible dog ownership, and no breed is inherently dangerous. Breed Specific Legislation has led to the destruction of innocent family pets whilst dog attacks still continue. And still nothing is done.

I very much hope that you will take my points on board and look forward to your response.

April 2013