Ennvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Written evidence submitted by the Association of Chief Police Officers

The following are observations of the proposed Bill relating to Dangerous Dogs, and the issue of Dog Attacks on Protected Animals. The Bill was presented to the Chair of the EFRA Committee on 9 April 2013, and has been drafted to deal with some of a number of specific issues that have been raised by stakeholders and the wider public in recent years;

1.Dogs that are Dangerously out of Control on private property.

2.Dog attacks on assistance dogs.

3.Sentencing in relation to prohibited breeds, under both Section 4A and 4B.

4.Dog Attacks on Protected Animals

I have the following observations on each of the aforementioned issues.

Dogs that are Dangerously out of Control on Private Property

As has been long anticipated, the extension of powers to private property has been included into the bill. This will assist investigators greatly when dealing with dog bite incidents on private property, particularly within the home. Many of most serious dog bite incidents, especially involving children, occur within the home environment, circumstances that are currently extremely frustrating for investigating officers. There has been a defence incorporated into the bill with regards to a dog attacking an individual who is, or believed by the occupant to be “in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser”:

“(1A)A person (‘D’) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case which is a householder case.

(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1A) ‘a householder case’ is a case where—

(a)the dog is dangerously out of control while D is in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or is both),

(b) D is not a trespasser at the time the dog is dangerously out of control, and

(c)at that time—

(i)the person in relation to whom the dog is dangerously out of control (‘V’) is in, or is entering, the building or part as a trespasser, or

(ii)D believed V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.”

This is referred to as “a householder case”, and affords protection the individual within the property, and their home. It does not include a person breaking into a garden shed or a vehicle however, although any person confronting such an individual in the company of their dog may have a defence of self defence and protection of property under Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, as amended by the proposed Clause 30 Crime and Courts Bill, and Sec 148 Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment Act 2012.

The “householder case” (proposed for Sec 3(1B)(ii) DDA 1991) of the Bill is taken from the Crime and Courts Bill in dealing with “use of force in self defence in place of residence”. As such is specifically drafted not to include where a householder believes a person may try to enter as a trespasser, requiring the trespasser to be within the dwelling or entering the dwelling.

A point that has raised concerns amongst some is that the householder has to be within the dwelling at the time that the dog is out of control and attacks the intruder, to be subject of the defence as laid out as “a householder case”. Clause (1B)(a) of the bill specifically requires the owner or person responsible for the dog (“D”), to be “in or partly in a building, or part of a building” at the time of the incident, to be protected from committing an offence under the proposed act.

“(1A)A person (‘D’) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case which is a householder case.

(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1A) ‘a householder case’ is a case where—

(a)the dog is dangerously out of control while D is in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or is both),”

The consequences of this would be that any individual leaving their dog in their home whilst they go out, may be liable to prosecution should their house be burgled whilst they are away, and their dog displays territorial aggressive behaviours,1 a natural behaviour, and attacks the intruder. It is accepted that any such incident would be subject to consideration of whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. However, this is an area where the public, and I strongly suspect most interested parties involved in prosecution and defence, would rather the householder was given a defence in law.

Many responsible dog owners, with no intention to possess a dog for the purpose of it acting as a guard dog, have some assurance in the fact that when they leave their home, the dog affords their property some level of protection. The proposed bill would lead householders to believe that they would have to further secure their dog, left secured within their home, so as to ensure it could not bite an intruder whilst they were not in attendance. I am confident that this is not what was government had in mind during the drafting of this bill.

Householders may have more protection should (1B)(a) read, “the dog is dangerously out of control while D is in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling for forces accommodation (or is both), or D is absent from the building and the dog is contained within the building,”

Dog Attacks on Assistance Dogs

The inclusion of attacks on assistance dogs as an aggravated offence under Sec 3 DDA ‘91, is an extremely welcome aspect of the Bill.

1. Keeping gods under proper control

(1)The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2)In section 3 (keeping dogs under proper control)—

(a)in subsection (1):

(i)for “a public place” substitute “any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)”, and

(ii)after “injuries any person” insert “or assistance dog”;

This gives those dependent on assistance dogs the reassurance that this dog, that is often an extension of themselves, is given appropriate protection in law. It further offers police clear guidance with regards to the powers available to them to investigate such incidents.

It also sends out a clear message to those who would allow their dogs to attack an assistance dog, either through irresponsible or criminal behaviour, that their actions may have severe criminal consequences.

Sentencing in Relation to Prohibited Breeds, under both Section 4A and 4B

Currently courts cannot take the character of the owner of a prohibited dog into account when sentencing under either Sec 4A or 4B of the DDA ‘91 [Queen on the application of Sandhu v Isleworth Crown Court and Defra 2012]. This has lead to increased concern amongst stakeholders that many irresponsible or criminally minded individuals, who to this point had been deemed to irresponsible to be in possession of a prohibited dog, will now be able to possess such dogs with an increased risk to public safety.

2. Whether a dog is a danger to public safety

(1)The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.

(2)In section 1(dogs bred for fighting) after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A)A scheme under subsection (3) or (5) may in particular include provision requiring a court to consider whether a person is a fit and proper person to be in charge of a dog.”

(3)In section 4 (destruction and disqualification orders) after subsection (1A) insert:

“(1B)For the purposes of subsection (1A)(a), when deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court—

(a)must consider—

(i) the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, and

(ii) whether the owner of the dog, or the person for the time being in charge of it, is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog, and

(b)may consider any other relevant circumstances.”

The murder of Seyi Ogunyemi, aged 16 years, in London in April 2009,2 highlighted the fact that even a dog deemed not to pose a danger to public safety by the courts, could be a danger in the hands of an individual who was either extremely irresponsible, or with criminal intentions.

The dog, a Pit Bull type dog named “Tyson”, was deemed to be safe by a court in September 2008 and subsequently placed onto the Index of Exempted Dogs. However the dog’s owner, Chrisdian Johnson, was able to use the dog to chase down and attack Seyi, in order to fatally stab him.

What the aforementioned tragic incident tell us is that a person’s character, and level of responsibility, may have a direct impact on public safety with regards to the ownership and control of prohibited breeds. To this end we welcome the proposed changes to the current situation laid out within the bill.

A further change to the current law proposed within the bill, is extending the availability of dealing with prohibited dogs by way of a civil application, from only dogs seized under Sections 5(1) or (2) of the DDA ‘91, to dogs seized “in exercise of a power of seizure conferred by any other enactment”.

(4)Section 4B (destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction) is amended as follows—

(a)in subsection (1) after “section 5(1) or (2) below” insert “or in exercise of a power of seizure conferred by any other enactment”;

This will avoid the unnecessary criminalisation of responsible individuals who came by a prohibited dog quite innocently. Furthermore, as these cases are dealt with far more swiftly than prosecutions, it will greatly improve animal welfare and reduce costs.

Dog Attacks on Protected Animals

Current legislation leaves enforcement agencies without adequate legislation to deal swiftly, and proportionately, with attacks by dogs on other animals. Incidents of attacks by dogs under the control of irresponsible individuals on other dogs are reported on a daily basis, officers very often having to inform distraught members of their communities that they have no grounds for criminal complaint. Dog attacks on a variety of other animals has been shown to be on the increase, with some organisations going to great lengths to encourage their members to report, and then collate this information. The British Horse Society has been able to evidence a marked increase in dog attacks on horses.3

Dog attacks on farmed animals have also shown current legislation to be outdated. Recent attacks on farmed Llamas have proven difficult for enforcement agencies to deal with appropriately. Llamas are not covered by the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act of 1953; this is due to their not being defined as livestock under s 3(1) of the Act.4

ACPO’s view is any attack on a protected animal must be aggravated (physical injury inflicted) for an offence to be committed. Use of the terminology “apprehend injury” would be too open to misinterpretation by individuals not familiar with animal behaviour, and although there may be a genuine apprehension of injury, it is not realistic to expect resources to be deployed for minor incidents. However, where a dog is so dangerously out of control that it attacks and seriously injures another animal, such as a dog or horse, officers should be empowered to investigate the case in a proportionate manner, and if in the public interest, place the owner before the courts.

ACPO takes on board the findings of the EFRA Inquiry5 that, “Enforcement agencies must give greater priority to responding to complaints of attacks on livestock and take a more consistent approach to prosecuting offences.” Guidance has been issued nationally via the Police Knowledge Website, to assist officers in the dealing with dog attacks on animals, and ACPO is currently working in partnership with the National Farmers Union, British Horse Society, and The Blue Cross, in an initiative to promote the safe and responsible socialisation of dogs with livestock, and to raise the awareness of the responsibilities of dog owners in rural communities. Police Dog Legislation Officer initial, and refresher training, will also now include specific input relating to attacks on dogs, livestock and other protected animals.

April 2013