'Dangerous Dogs' in Criminal Law: protecting the public, responsibilising owners, or barking up the wrong tree?
Download as PPTX, PDF2 likes716 views
This document discusses the history and effectiveness of dangerous dog legislation in the UK. It examines two aspects of the laws: type-specific bans that target certain breeds, and extending owner liability from public to private spaces. While the goals were to protect public safety and encourage responsible ownership, there is debate around whether these laws have achieved their aims given issues like the difficulty in identifying breeds. The document suggests alternative approaches could focus more on preventing irresponsible ownership through measures tailored for different owner groups.
![The extension of liability from public to
private spaces
As a general rule, only public spaces were covered by
the earlier legislation: "any street, road or other place
(whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or
are permitted to have access (s.10(2) DDA 1991)
Resulted in operational difficulties
A distinction between public and private places had
to be drawn see e.g. Fellowes v Crown Prosecution
Service [1993] WL 964524; R v Bogdal [2008] EWCA
Crim 1](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/shudangerousdogslawpresentation22102014final-141023025600-conversion-gate02/85/Dangerous-Dogs-in-Criminal-Law-protecting-the-public-responsibilising-owners-or-barking-up-the-wrong-tree-5-320.jpg)
![The extension of liability from public to
private spaces
There is no agreed definition of dwelling a
question of degree (Maunsell v Olins and
Another [1975] 1 All ER)
Does this a) responsibilise owners and b)
increase public safety?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/shudangerousdogslawpresentation22102014final-141023025600-conversion-gate02/85/Dangerous-Dogs-in-Criminal-Law-protecting-the-public-responsibilising-owners-or-barking-up-the-wrong-tree-8-320.jpg)
![The Community Infrastructure Levy - a planning [law] gain?](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/slspresentation2014-communityinfrastructurelevy-140914112623-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=560&fit=bounds)
More Related Content
Viewers also liked (7)
Similar to 'Dangerous Dogs' in Criminal Law: protecting the public, responsibilising owners, or barking up the wrong tree? (6)
Recently uploaded (20)
'Dangerous Dogs' in Criminal Law: protecting the public, responsibilising owners, or barking up the wrong tree?
- 1. Dangerous dogs in criminal law: protecting the public and responsibilising owners, or barking up the wrong tree? Lydia Bleasdale-Hill, University of Leeds Jill Dickinson, Sheffield Hallam University
- 2. Overview History of legislation in this area, including the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, and the intentions behind such legislation (responsibilising owners and enhancing public safety) Two aspects of legislation will be examined in detail: type-specific legislation and the extension of owner liability for dangerous dogs from public to private spaces
- 3. Overview These two issues are used as a framework for the following discussion: 1. Can the aims of successive governments in this area be said to have been met? 2. Are there more effective ways of meeting those aims, particularly in light of the fact owners of dangerous dogs might not be considered to be an homogenous group?
- 4. Overview of the history of dangerous dogs legislation Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 a synonym for any unthinking reflex legislative response to media hype (Hood, 2000 at 282) Introduced an offence of a dog being dangerously out of control in a public place (s.3(1)) Introduced type-specific legislation for the first time Index of Exempted Dogs Heavily criticised, but the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 did not address the criticisms
- 5. The extension of liability from public to private spaces As a general rule, only public spaces were covered by the earlier legislation: "any street, road or other place (whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access (s.10(2) DDA 1991) Resulted in operational difficulties A distinction between public and private places had to be drawn see e.g. Fellowes v Crown Prosecution Service [1993] WL 964524; R v Bogdal [2008] EWCA Crim 1
- 6. The extension of liability from public to private spaces The 2014 Act extended liability for dangerously out of control dogs from public places to private places except where: - The dog is in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both), and - 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 D (if present at that time) believes V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.
- 7. The extension of liability from public to private spaces Effect is that those entering private areas are protected, unless they are trespassers within a dwelling or are honestly believed to be trespassers within that dwelling Burglars, for example, are not protected A child retrieving a ball from a neighbours garden, for example, is protected
- 8. The extension of liability from public to private spaces There is no agreed definition of dwelling a question of degree (Maunsell v Olins and Another [1975] 1 All ER) Does this a) responsibilise owners and b) increase public safety?
- 9. The ongoing use of type-specific provisions The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits the sale/breeding of certain types of dogs (e.g. pitbulls), including cross-breeds Breed- or type-specific legislation is regarded as necessary by some because certain breeds of dogs are regarded as particularly prone to violence, and several countries have similar provisions in place
- 10. The ongoing use of type-specific provisions There are many reservations about such provisions though deed not breed; ignores the variety of factors which influence a dog to bite; the difficulty in determining whether the dog comes within the provision; moves the focus away from encouraging responsible ownership of all dogs Does this a) responsibilise owners and b) increase public safety?
- 11. Where do we go from here? The proper attention to the pit bull problem requires the study of regulatory alternatives that will root out the causes of the problem, rather than the symptoms. Irresponsible human actions will continue to produce dangerous dogs as long as legislation leaves human conduct unchecked. Banning an entire breed from existence will not alter irresponsible human behaviour, nor will it reduce the number of dangerous dogs resulting from this behaviour. A true solution requires bring the issue of irresponsible and inhumane ownership to the forefront. (Medlin, 2007, at 1318)
- 12. Change of approach Moving from after the event to prevention David Grant, RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital: Focus should be on the social deprivation conveyor belt at its beginning, not at its end (September, 2010) Prevention might be context specific, including in terms of area (Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2010, p.29) and group/individual in question (Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2010, p.31) Area lacks empirical data
- 13. Key groups? Group one (wilfully criminal): gang members, often involved in other criminal offences, dog fighting etc Group two (wilfully neglectful/wilfully criminal): more likely to view dogs as companions, but with added benefits (status, protection) Group three (inadvertently neglectful): the it wont happen to me or fingers crossed group
- 14. Engaging with the key groups Groups one and two: top down approach unlikely to be as effective as other interventions (Hughes, Maher and Lawson, 2010). Group one particularly difficult to reach and research. Potential lessons from general gang interventions? Group three: Potential lessons from policies which successfully reduced unwanted pregnancies?
- 15. Contact details Jill Dickinson: E: Jill.Dickinson@shu.ac.uk Tw: @Jill_Dickinson1 Lydia Bleasdale-Hill: E: l.k.bleasdalehill@leeds.ac.uk Tw: @Parkendlydia