No To DDA Amendments-MP Template Letter

Say No To DDA Amendments which will affect all dogs.

Please use our new template MP letter for ideas or use as it is, more letters needed - voice your concerns - innocent dogs need you.

You can send a letter via post to the House of Commons or email your MP

To find out who your MP is  click here

 

Your MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A OAA

Dear

 

I am contacting you regarding the amendments planned for the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 which have been included in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill 2013-14 currently in progress in parliament.

 

I am very concerned that these amendments will unfairly incriminate responsible dog owners and their pet dogs and I do not support what is currently planned and before parliament.

 

I do not think that section three of the DDA should be extended to ‘any’ place – which I understand is for example inside my home and would apply to both aggravated and non-aggravated situations.

Under the legislation the legal definition of ‘dangerously out of control’ is: a dog is presumed to be such if on any occasion there are grounds for ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury to any person - whether or not any injury has happened.

 

The planned extension of the DDA to private property I feel could leave responsible owners open to malicious complaints (e.g. neighbour and family disputes) and not suitably protected from trespassers and intruders – anyone present on my property without my consent.

 

Where will I stand if a burglar/trespasser is in my garden and my dog runs out and barks at them – this could give cause for ‘reasonable apprehension’ under the extended DDA and I would be presumably on the wrong side of the law?

 

What if someone comes to read my electric/gas meter and then later complains my dog barked at them and they felt reasonable apprehension – my dog could be seized from my own home?

 

What about a dog running and baking in its own garden and a neighbour complains they felt reasonable apprehension’ and the dog is seized by a dog warden or the police whilst the complaint is investigated?

 

Offences where any injury has occurred are currently treated as one of strict liability; I feel that defences should be allowed for example if a dog is acting in self-defence.

 

Following a serious dog attack within a family unit it is often reported that the DDA is flawed as it doesn’t enable criminal prosecution and this is described as a ‘loophole’. But what would be the benefits of criminally prosecuting the parents of a child which has been bitten by their own family dog? This will not prevent dog injuries inside people’s homes – in my opinion; education is needed and is the way forward to prevent the majority of dog injuries inside the home environment and to encourage/promote responsible dog ownership.

 

Education is the key to responsible dog ownership, education prevents dog bites, it should be compulsory in schools forming part of the National Curriculum.

 

Additionally, I do not believe that barking or growling, with no actual contact, at an assistance dog should be allowed to lead to a criminal prosecution or civil proceedings as the amendments will permit if passed as law.

 

I also do not support the amending of the DDA so that when the court is deciding whether a dog would constitute a danger to public safety, the court MUST consider whether the owner is ‘fit and proper’ and may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’. In my view the definition of what is ‘fit and proper’ is wide open to interpretation as are ‘any other circumstances’; for example, whether or not there is a garden, a dog owner's disability or having children is considered by the court and a pet dog is given a death sentence because of it.

There should not be a compulsory stipulation as to what the court must take into account, this is removing discretion from the court and is in my opinion open to misuse and will result in the death of more innocent pet dogs who are not a danger to anyone in my opinion.

 

Furthermore I understand that the DDA is to be amended to allow civil proceedings to be performed under all sections but with no legal aid to cover civil proceedings, many dog owners will have no means to defend themselves and to defend their dog from a possible death sentence e.g. to instruct a solicitor. Surely legal aid should be extended also for these cases.

 

This Bill fails to address the need to put the emphasis on the education to encourage responsible dog ownership and help prevent dog bite incidents, the desperate need to remove the breed specific element of the legislation which is causing suffering and mayhem-the repeal of which has been widely supported in previous consultations but totally ignored by government.

 

I look forward to your reply.

 

 Repeal Breed Specific Law - Campaign Info.

No To DDA Amendments - Petition

Petition Against DDA Amendments - please sign the petition against the planned changes in dog law; add your name to the HM Government site e-petition.

Petition text:

Responsible department: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

We the undersigned oppose the proposed amendments to the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA).

We oppose extending section 3 to any place leaving dogs & their owners potentially criminalised in their own homes. ‘Dangerously out of control’ is any occasion a person has ‘reasonable apprehension’ of injury whether or not the dog has actually injured a person.

Offences should not be of strict liability as is currently the case.

Barking/growling alone at an assistance dog should not result in proceedings.

We oppose any extension of powers to enter private property or seize a dog from private property without a warrant.

We object to amendments that a court MUST consider if the owner is ‘fit and proper’ & may consider ‘any other relevant circumstances’.

 

BSL does nothing to protect the public, or address the problems of irresponsible owners/breeders.

Defendants should be innocent until proved guilty.

Legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings under the DDA & also the Dogs Act 1871.

Sign Here

Dangerous Dog Act - Amendments Planned

The government has published proposed amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 - the amendments are now underway; if passed as law, these amendments will affect not only the prohibited dogs but all breeds and types of dog in England and Wales.
 
The draft Dangerous Dogs (DD) Amendment Bill was recently published by Defra, shortly afterwards the EFRA committee launched a two week inquiry to invite written evidence followed by oral evidence specifically on the proposed Bill; they received 86 written responses.

Details of written evidence submitted to the EFRA Committee can be found here.

The draft DD Amendment Bill was expected to be in the Queen’s speech on 8^th May (meaning it will be one of several bills addressed in the next parliamentary session), but, it was not.

The proposed changes had appeared, without explanation within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing (ASCP) Bill which is a Home Office bill and was included in the Queen’s speech; on the government’s legislative agenda - it is now underway to become an Act – new legislation, which is far reaching, for all dogs and their owners.

The planned amendments to the DDA were published in the ASCP bill before EFRA had published its written report on the evidence it received. Previously the Home Affairs Committee had held an inquiry into this bill ending in January but this was before the amendments from the draft DDA bill were placed into this bill.

So in a nutshell;

·         an Inquiry ending in January 2013 was previously held into the ASCP Bill but at the time the DDA Amendments were not included in the bill

·         a draft Dangerous Dogs Amendment Bill was published by Defra on 9th April

·         a separate inquiry was held by the EFRA Committee - with a deadline of 22nd April

·         the Queen’s speech on 8th May included the ASCP Bill

·         the Government went ahead and placed the amendments within the ASCP Bill which was published on the 9th May

·         the EFRA committee published its report on 16th May on the pre-legislative inquiry it just held but the Amendments were already published

The ASCP Bill is now in progress – this is a large detailed bill where a relatively small portion relates to dogs - it could easily slip past undetected unless you were actually looking for it.

To follow the progress of the Bill click here - you will see that the second reading is due in the Commons on the 10th June 2013

You can read the Bill online here - Part 7 - specifically relates to ‘Dangerous Dogs’ – keeping dogs under proper control and whether a dog is a danger to public safety.

The text from the original draft DDA Amendment Bill has been changed as it’s moved from bill to bill – in reference to the ‘Householder defence’ – there is no longer the need for the owner to be present at the time of an incident in a building that is a dwelling (ie your home) - but this defence applies to the building only, not the garden etc. So presumably if a burglar is in your garden and your dog injures him or there are reasonable grounds your dog might - you are on the wrong side of the law.

The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Bill also contains the new provisions of Public Spaces Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices are also included in this Bill.

Currently we have Dog Control Orders which are to be repealed and replaced with Public Spaces Protection Orders. PSPO's – these will also be made by local authorities but not parish councils. There’s no limit to what a PSPO can command and they can remain for up to three years.

Community Protection Notice (CPN) will be issued by the police and local authorities, this is a new power for when there is ‘conduct of a persistent or continuing nature’. The CPN specify requirements to do specified things, cease doing specified things or to take reasonable steps to achieve specified results.

 

Draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013

The Queen's Speech on May the 8th is reported to include the draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013.

On the 9th April the Government published its draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill which aims to amend the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA), if passed this new legislation will affect dogs of all breeds/types.

Here we take a detailed look through the Bill and give our analysis on the sections-to read through the proposals you can view the draft Bill in its entirety with government explanatory notes online (see below).
The main points of the Bill are:

1) Extension of section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act:
 

Section three of the DDA, which applies to all breeds/types of dog, would be extended to apply to all places – to include private property e.g. within your home and garden. This extension would apply to England and Wales.
Section Three of the DDA currently creates a presumption that a dog is presumed to be dangerously out of control if there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so - with an aggravated offence being committed if the dog, whilst out of control, injures any person, regardless of the circumstances.

Offences where any injury has been caused are currently of strict liability; defences should be possible for dogs alleged to be ‘dangerously out of control’ e.g. when a dog is acting in self-defence - the planned changes do not address this at all.

The draft Bill would extend the law to make it a criminal offence for a dog to be “dangerously out of control” in any place. The definition of “dangerously out of control” remaining the same - when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injury any person whether or not a person is actually injured.

We do not support the extension of sec 3 to 'any' place.

The Bill also extends section three of the DDA with a new provision relating to assistance dogs, making it a criminal offence for a dog to be “dangerously out of control” when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injure any assistance dog, whether or not it actually does, if any injury is caused to an assistance dog whilst out of control an aggravated offence will have been committed.

An assistance dog is (defined by the Equality Act 2010 c173):

§  A dog which has been trained to guide a blind person

§  A dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person

§  A dog which has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability that consists of epilepsy or otherwise affects the person’s mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects

§  A dog of a prescribed category which has been trained to assist a disabled person who has a disability of a prescribed kind (not listed above).

We do not believe that non-aggravated offences should be extended to assistance dogs - e.g. a dog barking at an assistance dog could result in criminal or civil proceedings under the Amendment.

1a) Householder cases:

An exemption has been created in relation to trespassers on private property inside a dwelling – if the householder defence is in operation then no offence under sec. 3 has been committed.
But its application is not clear from how this section is worded – it seems to be that the dog’s owner or carer must be themselves physically present, for example in your home, whilst a trespasser is actually entering the building – so if you have a burglar entering your house whilst you are in it and your dog injures them defending you, you might have a defence.

If you the dog’s owner is not at home whilst there is a break in on your home - there is no defence - you have to be present at the time of the incident!

Also your garden isn’t stated - so if your dog injures or causes apprehension to a trespasser i.e. an intruder on your private garden/private attached land/outbuildings you may have committed a criminal offence if you dog even barks at them.

In our opinion extending ‘dangerously out of control’ to private property will leave dogs and their responsible owners vulnerable to vexatious complaints, not properly protected from trespassers and intruders, with dog owners being subject to legal hearings and potentially criminalised when their dogs are just acting as dogs do - not causing any harm or disturbing anyone - our dogs should be allowed to act as dogs do in our own homes.

2) Powers of entry and seizure:

Section1 (5) of the draft Bill extends the powers of entry and seizure – giving the right to enter private property and seize any dog which appears to be “dangerously out of control” without a warrant.

We do not support the extension of powers for the police or a local authority dog warden to enter private property or to seize a dog from private property e.g. our homes and enclosed gardens without a warrant, if the dog appears to be, or if it appears to have been 'dangerously out of control’.

3) Determination of ‘danger to public safety’:

When a dog is found guilty under sec 3 or sec 1 (prohibited types) the court can order a contingent destruction order as an alternative to a destruction order if satisfied that the dog would not constitute a ‘danger to public safety’. Once satisfied in the case of a prohibited type the court can order the dog is added to the Index of Exempted Dogs as an alternative to destruction.

The definition of what the court must consider has been given in the draft Bill as;

·         the character of the owner or keeper - whether this person is ‘fit and proper’

·         the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour

·         any other relevant circumstances
 

The definition of ‘any other relevant circumstances’ or a ‘fit and proper’ is not given and this will in our opinion be wide open to interpretation.

The same will also apply to section 4b applications before the court – where no legal aid is possible, hence as is currently the situation most cannot afford legal representation nor breed identification or behavioural assessment for the court to dispute 'type' and/or defend their dog if necessary.

This section of the amendment will apply to England, Scotland and Wales.

The notes to the draft Bill describe the Sandhu Judgement as ‘adverse’ – The Sandhu judgement was not in our opinion ‘adverse’. The High Court has examined and interpreted the DDA as it currently stands and confirmed that keeper is separate to owner – saving the lives of innocent dogs as the ruling has enabled exempted dogs to live with a nominated keeper if they are unable to stay with their registered owner.

In our opinion the draft Bill seeks now to destroy pet dogs by dictating to the court what they MUST consider when deciding whether to issue destruction order or CDO. Whether keepership will remain an option is unclear, but in our opinion this draft Bill is adverse and likely to lead to more deaths of innocent dogs that are no danger to anyone.

4) Civil Proceedings:

The draft Amendment will also amend the DDA to enable civil legal proceedings to be bought in respect of dogs under any enactment; this section is not clearly written and has not been given much coverage, nor did previous consultations ask for views on this, yet it would in our opinion have far reaching consequences unless legal aid were to be extended and given where destruction of a dog is at stake.

Legal aid is presently not available, therefore owners will not be able to properly defend themselves. It is unfair and unjust if a defence cannot be put to the courts as the owner cannot afford legal representation and expert assessment e.g. a behavioural report, for the courts – for example to demonstrate the temperament of their dog-just one requirement needed in order to avoid a death penalty for the dog.

If the current legislation is to be amended to allow for civil proceedings to be enacted under all sections then legal aid should be extended to cover civil proceedings.

Verdict:

We do not support the Amendments. Tragically, after so many years of failed abysmal legislation, these poorly drafted Amendments take what already does not work and make it staggeringly worse, the breed specific element is left to carry on causing mayhem, desperation and the countless deaths of innocent pet dogs, whilst nothing here will prevent dog bites or promote responsible dog ownership.

Further Information:

The draft Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill 2013 with explanatory notes.

The Dangerous Dogs Act explained