If Local Authorities are found to fail a legal duty of care to check for dangerous dogs, then how liable are they?
The Control of Dogs (Scotland) Bill has now completed stage three of its passage through the Scottish parliament. The bill highlights the responsibility of the owners to prevent dog attacks to protect the public, and places less emphasis on the breed of dog mirroring the principle of ‘deed not breed’. It also provides local authorities with greater powers to impose penalties on irresponsible owners.
The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK made it illegal to own or breed four types of fighting dog: pit bulls; the dogo argentino, a dog bred for hunting boar; the Japanese tosa, a huge mastiff and the world's oldest breed of fighting dog; and the fila brasileiro, bred specifically for aggression. The Dangerous Dogs Act did have a temporary effect on pit bull numbers, which declined in the 1990s.
In 1997 Parliament introduced an amendment which gave magistrates discretionary powers to give illegal breeds back to their owners, subject to certain restrictions, if the owners are deemed responsible enough to keep the dogs under control. Magistrates decide on the basis of evidence given in reports by the police, defendants' evidence, and supporting documents such as letters from vets or neighbours.
The Act allows for a maximum prison sentence of up to six months, or a £5,000 fine, owners know that custodial sentences are almost unheard of. Gordon, a 22-year-old from Shepherd's Bush, west London, is the proud owner of a cross-bred fighting dog that affords him the all-important 'respect' on the streets and makes him feel protected. 'Nowadays, that's just as good as having a knife,' he says with a nod to his dog, Rocky. 'The damage that could do to a person if it's used in the right way, that could inflict more pain than a knife because it's going to be crushing bones and piercing skin. If you were to own a dog and it killed someone, the sentences ain't that big. I've thought of the consequences of being arrested but if you've got options it's better to let the dog bite the person than your life being ended.'
Disturbing as his attitude may be, Gordon sums up the mentality of many status dog owners. 'Ninety per cent of the problem is with the owners, not the dogs,' says policeman Sgt Ian McParland. 'Most of these kids genuinely love their dogs, but they don't understand the dogs enough to be able to look after them properly. If someone carries a knife or a gun, you have to aim that gun at someone for it to be dangerous. Dogs don't have to be aimed at anyone. Pit bulls can be well-socialised animals, just like any other breed, if they are well treated and trained correctly, but all too often they're not.'
Kenneth (now Lord) Baker believes the 1997 amendment was a mistake and says “…to suggest that you can somehow educate the owners – well, I just don't think that's realistic if you look at who the owners are.'
Dogs that are seized by police are taken to dog pounds as step one of a process that lasts an average of six months before a dog's fate is decided. Assessments are made to decide whether the animal can be classed as a 'pit bull type' dog (or another banned breed), depending on physical characteristics such as the shape of the head. A report is written by attending officers for the Crown Prosecution Service and, in the case of a not guilty plea by the owner, appear in court to give evidence when magistrates decide whether the dog should be destroyed. Each dog will take up an average of three days of an officer's time, from the moment he applies for a warrant to the eventual disposal of the case by a court. As at April 2010, the Met has 471 dogs in its kennels awaiting their day in court. 2011’s budget for kennelling dangerous dogs is £2.85 million in London alone. Only half of the dogs that are seized by the Met end up being destroyed. The rest are returned to their owners, with no rehabilitation, but after being put on a register of exempted animals. None, however, can be found a new home; the Dangerous Dogs Act deems this to be too risky and allows only for dogs to be either destroyed or returned to their original owner.
Given the requirements of the Dangerous Dogs Act, questions have been raised about the potential liability of Local Authorities in the event that a dangerous dog causes injury and the Local Authority (as the last title holder of the dog prior to re-homing) is shown to have failed in its duty of care by failing to identify the (dangerous) breed of a dog and consequently advertising it for re-homing.
Read more at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
http://www.dogmagazine.net/
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/