MEDIA CAMPAIGNS (These may have a limited life)
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/ Liverpool’s “BITEBACK” campaign.
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/ The “Devil Dogs” title of this campaign is a bit OTT, but it may do some good from sheer numbers.
http://www.thisisbradford.co.uk/news/ Dog attack victim's parents join T&A campaign
DEFRA 19th December 2006
ATTACKS BY DOGS
Thank you for your e-
Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended 1997) gives protection to the public from a dog of any type or breed which is dangerously out of control in a public place. This includes any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person, whether or not it actually does so. The Act also makes it an offence to allow a dog to enter a private place where it has no right to be and while there injure any person (or while there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure a person).
Where a dog does not cause injury but an offence is committed, the maximum penalty
is imprisonment for up to 6-
However, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 does not apply where a dog is permitted to be on private premises. In these cases The Dogs Act 1871 applies including in and around a private house. Any person can make a complaint under the 1871 Act to a magistrates courts that a dog is dangerous.
Where a magistrates' court makes an order under the Dogs Act 1871 directing a dog
to be destroyed it may also, under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 -
(a) appoint a person to undertake its destruction and require any person having custody of the dog to deliver it up for that purpose; and
(b) if it thinks fit, make an order disqualifying the owner for having custody of a dog for such period as is specified in the order.
Any person who fails to comply with an order under the 1871 Act to keep a dog under proper control or deliver it up for destruction under the 1989 Act is liable for a fine not exceeding £1,000 and the court may also disqualify that person from having custody of a dog. The strength of the Dogs Act 1871 is that, as the civil standard of proof applies, an order may be made by the court on the balance of probabilities that a dog is dangerous.
In 2004, the latest year for which figures are available, 177 people were found guilty in England of failure to keep a dog under proper control under the 1871 Dogs Act as amended. Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 a further 30 people were found guilty of offences stemming from incidents occurring on private property where there dog had no right to be. If you wish to find more statistics on dog attacks, I would suggest that you contact the Home Office as they are the Government department responsible for collecting these figures.
In addition, where an attack has taken place on private premises it may be possible for a person who has been attacked by a dog to initiate civil proceedings to claim damages on the basis that the person owning or controlling the dog was negligent. Where a person has been invited onto premises by the occupier then that occupier may become liable for any injury suffered by the visitor under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957. This duty generally covers the state of the premises, but has been held to extend to cover damage caused by animals present on those premises. The Animals Act 1971 also provides that in certain circumstances the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knew it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained.
Finally, to address your question about breaching common law responsibility, if a person feels that their local serving official has been negligent of their duties they have every right to take this up locally with the governing body.
I hope that this letter addresses your concerns.
Yours sincerely,
Defra -
LETTERS
TO DEFRA
IDEAS FOR INCLUSION IN A CAMPAIGN FOR GREATER RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOG OWNERS TOWARDS THE PUBLIC
Please constrain your message to a balanced argument covering the points suggested below as examples:
Then send it to the Secretary of State
That a licensing scheme be introduced that makes it very expensive to own dogs
that are amongst those breeds that cause the most attacks on the public. This could
be on a scale proportionate to the probability of the dog causing a problem. The
licence could have classifications of the type of dog allowed to be owned -
That third party insurance against injury to people should be a compulsory condition for taking any breed of dog into a public place. This must be carried at all times when walking the dog and produced in the vent of an incident.
That it be mandatory that breeds in the top ten percent of those statistically responsible for attacks on members of the public have to wear muzzles when in public.
The type of lead used must be appropriate to the dog. No dog is under adequate control on a “reel” type lead and these should be banned.
That it be illegal for any dog not to be on a lead in a public place except where that place is a fenced and gated area put aside especially for exercising dogs.
That not complying with any of the above be made a criminal offence.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
CAMPAIGNS
WANT TO HELP WITH A CAMPAIGN?
LINKS TO SITES OFFERING ADVICE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_attack Information and advice on dog attacks and their avoidance..
http://www.kenkifer.com/bikepages/traffic/dogs.htm Advice for cyclists.
http://walking.about.com/od/medfirstaid/a/dogattack.htm Advice for walkers.
http://www.intute.ac.uk/healthandlifesciences/ Various leaflets aimed at owners mainly.
http://www.newtownabbey.gov.uk/ General advice
This petition is from pit bull owners, but is included since it asks for
stricter rules and harsher punishments for irresponsible owners.
AN E-
