1. Letter to Mr Kane
Dear Mr. Kane
I have been asked to advise you in relation to your desire to prosecute the owners of dogs who have been running loose and causing property damage in Queens Park under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (the “Act”).
To summarise, I disagree with the view of the police. As explained in more detail below, there are various options for prosecuting the individuals involved under the Act, provided that it can be proven that the dogs were “dangerously out of control” and/or were dogs designated as dangerous (e.g. pit bull terriers) that were in a public place without being kept on leads with adequate muzzles in place.
Damage to property
Section 3 of the Act imposes an obligation on people to keep dogs under “proper control”. Section 3(1) specifies that an offence is committed by a dog's owner or (if different) the person in charge of the dog, if a dog is “dangerously out of control" in England or Wales (provided, in accordance with section 3(1A), that the dog is not inside or partly inside a building that is a dwelling or forces accommodation).
This suggests that if it can be proved that the dogs in question were dangerously out of control, an offence might have been committed under the Act by those in charge of the dogs. Moreover, an aggravated offence occurs where a dangerously out of control dog "injures any person”, with such offence potentially leading to harsher penalties. However, this aggravated offence only arises where personal injury occurs, so property damage alone could not form the basis of a prosecution in this context.
Importantly, this section only applies where a dog is “dangerously” out of control, which might not be the case in some (or all) of the circumstances raised by the residents. However, this does not mean that the individuals involved cannot potentially be prosecuted in relation to a different offence under the Act.Rules specific to pit bulls
In particular, section 1 of the Act states that the owner of a pit bull terrier (or an individual responsible for looking after a pit bull terrier) must keep the dog muzzled and on a lead whilst in a public place. Section 7 then clarifies that muzzles must be securely fitted in order to prevent the dog from biting others, whilst the lead must be held by a person aged 16 or over and capable of securely restraining the animal.
Whilst it is currently unclear whether these dogs have been adequately muzzled, there is little doubt that the owners have been in violation of the requirement to keep the dogs on a lead (given that the dogs appear to have been “running loose” in Queens Park). Assuming this is the case, the owners (or persons in charge of these pit bulls at the time) will have contravened section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. If convicted of this offence, those responsible could be liable for imprisonment and/or to pay a fine, in accordance with section 1(7) of the Act.
To conclude, if it can be proven that the dogs were dangerously out of control in the park, this could constitute an offence under section 3 of the Act. Moreover, the fact that the dogs in question are pit bulls makes the present case relatively clear cut. The owners are in violation of the Act simply by letting dogs of this specific breed run loose in public without being kept on a lead. If it transpires that the dogs were not muzzled, this would constitute a further offence.
Should you have any further questions, I would be more than happy to discuss the issue with you in more detail.
Kind regards
Your Lawyer
Advice on this case study
2. Letter to the Government
Dear Minister X
Background
I have recently advised Brent councillor, Mr. Kane, in connection with various complaints raised by residents regarding pit bulls running loose in Queens Park and damaging both park property and the personal belongings of residents. I advised Mr Kane that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (the “Act”) clearly prohibits pit bulls from being out in public without leads or muzzles, and that where an owner (or person in charge) of a pit bull fails to adhere to these rules, they can be prosecuted.
Key issues
However, a key issue that has arisen as a result of our discussions relates to the fact that where a dangerous dog is muzzled, on a lead, and not “dangerously” out of control, there would be no recourse under the Act for an innocent bystander if a dog destroys their property. There would also be no recourse for a local authority where public property under its control is damaged in such circumstances. Currently, a prosecution is only possible if it can be proven that the dog was “dangerously” out of control. Moreover, “dangerously” is not defined, which adds a layer of ambiguity that can make prosecution more difficult.
Given the significant strength and potentially aggressive demeanour of pit bulls (attributes that led to their designation as “dangerous”), they have an increased capacity to cause damage to property, as do other large breeds of dogs that have not currently been designated as “dangerous”.
Recommendations
I am therefore writing to you to ask that the Act be amended to allow for the prosecution of dog owners (or people in charge of their dogs) where their dogs cause damage to property. I also recommend that the term “dangerously” is either defined more precisely, or removed from the provisions.
From a policy perspective, responsibility for the financial consequences of property damage caused by a dog should rest with the individual who chose to acquire (or agreed to take charge of) a dog capable of causing such damage, rather than an innocent bystander or an authority funded by tax payers.
With this in mind, I believe these recommended amendments to the Act would encourage all dog owners to assess more carefully whether their dog is of a temperament likely to result in property damage, which should reduce the risk of property damage occurring. Moreover, if more dogs are kept on a lead as a result, this could also reduce the risk of personal injury arising.
I would be happy to discuss any of the above with you in more detail should this be helpful.
Thank you for your time.
Kind regards
Your Lawyer
Advice on this case study