|
Watford
GSD Help & Information
|
|
Given todays climate
it is all too easy to find yourself the subject of legal
proceedings because of some percieved bad behaviour from your
canine companion. Having recently attended a seminar
on Dog Law where the guest speaker was Trevor Cooper we came
away both enlightened yet worried from the topics that were covered
during his talk. The continual emphasis on the need to have
a good third party liability pet insurance was fully understood
by the end of the seminar. People now can take legal proceedings
using law firms acting on a no win no fee basis which means your costs
in defending your dog can make you a road to financial ruin a very
short one.
************************
Dangerous
Dogs Act 1991
This is an Act to prohibit
persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging
to types bred for fighting; it imposes restrictions in respect
of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition;
to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types
of dog which present a serious danger to the public; and to make
further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control.
By virtue of the Commencement Order, Section 1(3) (prohibition on
possession of specific dogs and compensation for destruction) shall
come into force on November 30th 1991. Other provisions came into
force on August 2th 1991.
Section 1 (Dogs bred for fighting)
provides:
(1) This section applies to-
(a) any dog of they type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese Tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section
by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him
to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred
for that purpose.
(2) No person shall-
(a) breed, or breed from, a dog which this section applies;
(b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such
a dog for sale or exchange;
(c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose
such a dog as a gift;
(d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner for the time being
in charge to be in a public place without a muzzle and kept on a
lead; or
(e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner
or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray.
Any person who contravenes this section
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not
exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (£2,000) or both.
Section 2 (Other specifically dangerous
dogs) provides that, if it appears to the Secretary of
State that dogs of any type to which section 1 does not apply present
a serious danger to the public, he may by order impose corresponding
restrictions to dogs of that type.
Section 3 (Keeping dogs under proper
control) states:
(1) If a dog is dangerously out of
control in a public place-
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the
dog, is guilty of an offence, if the dog, is guilty of an offence,
or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated
offence under this section.
(2) In proceedings for an offence under
subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of
a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall
be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material
time in charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be
a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
back to top
****************************
The Acts introduces the new legal concept of a "Duty of Care",
which means that people are now legaly obliged to ensure the welfare
of their animals. The Acts also strenghthens penalties for anyone
convicted of an animal welfare offence, as well giving law enforcement
agencies the power to take action to prevent animal suffering before
it has a chance to occur.
The Animal Welfare Act requires anyone who is responsible for a
pet to do what is reasonable to meet their welfare needs - these include:
A proper Diet (including water)
Somewhere suitable to live
Any need to be housed with or apart from, other animals
Allowing animals to express normal behaviour
Protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease
The penalty for failing to care for a pet could be a fine or even
a prison sentance
The Acts are currently primary (framework) legislation and
Dogs Trust is continuing to work with government on secondary legislation
and codes of practice. We have produced a plain English Guide to
the dog-specific parts of the Acts. If you would like a copy please
call customer services on :
*********************
Dog Identity Tag. It is the requirement
of the Dogs Act 1906, that all dogs whist on the highway
or public places wear a collar with their owners name and address
inscribed or attached to it.
Barking Dogs. Legal action may
be taken against the owner of a noisy dog under the Environmental
Protection Act 1990, Section 80.
Dog Fouling. Indiscriminate dog
fouling is unpleasant, unhygienic, a health risk and antisocial.
There is a byelaw in Leicester which states: "No person being
in charge of a dog shall allow it to foul the footway of any street
or public place by depositing excrement thereon" New 'poop-scoop'
byelaws will shortly be introduced to cover dog fouling on parks
and open places. Train your dog to foul at home if he/she accidentally
fouls in a public place, clear it up.
The law does not apply to:
Guide dogs
Land used for agriculture or woodlands
Land which is mainly marshland, moor
or heath
Rural common land
Land comprised of or running alongside
a road with a speed limit over 40 miles per hour
The Council’s uniformed wardens and dog
wardens regularly patrol parks and other places used for
dog walking and can issue fixed penalty notices of £50
to anyone found committing an offence. Alternatively the case
could be taken to Court where a fine of up £1000 can be given.
If you wish to report a dog fouling offence,
contact your dog wardens
Always make sure that you clean up after
your dog and put the waste in a dog bin or dustbin.
Accidents. If your
dog causes an accident or injures someone, the owner of the dog
may be liable to pay compensation, eg ~ a dog straying out into the
road and causing an accident.
Insurance. It is strongly recommended
that you obtain third party insurance for your dog(s).
Dangerous Dogs. Under the Dangerous
Dogs Act 1990, it is an offence to allow any dog to be
dangerously out of control in a public place. A dog is regarded
as "dangerously out of control" under the act if there are good
grounds for suspecting that it will injure a person, whether or
not it actually does so. If no injury is caused, the maximum sentence
is a dine of £2,000 and/or 6 months imprisonment. Where actual
injury is caused, the maximum sentence is 2 years' imprisonment
and/or an unlimited fine. The Courts can also now specify particular
forms of restriction, such as muzzling or leashing, for all types of
dog, as well as the power to disqualify owners from having custody of
a dog for any period of time felt appropriate.
Dog Prohibition Areas
There are a number of places
in the borough where dogs are banned, with the exception of guide dogs.
These dog prohibition areas are mostly children’s play areas and cemeteries
and are patrolled by dog wardens. Anyone taking a dog into one of these
areas could be taken to Court where a fine of up to £500 can be given.
"Like most working
dogs, my dogs never wear collars when they are working and only
rarely at other times. However, if you exercise your dog
in a public place without a collar and name tag you are breaking
the law, and the infamous 1992 Control of Dogs Order even allows
for a fine of up to £5,000. Having a dog that is microchipped
or tattooed is not a satisfactory defence."
Avoid walking your dog near a children’s
play area or in a cemetery - there will be many other places
nearby where you can walk your dog.
Dogs on Leads Areas
Your dog should always be
kept under control in public places, but in some areas there are
byelaws which state that dogs must be kept on a lead (with the
exception of guide dogs). These areas are in ornamental gardens,
bowling greens, and pitch and putt areas and are patrolled by dog
wardens.
Anyone taking a dog into one of these
areas without a lead could be taken to Court where a fine
of up to £500 can be given. If you wish to report an offence,
contact the dog warden
Stray dogs
The Council has a duty under
the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to catch dogs that appear
to be strays. Police Officers may also catch strays, but do not
have a duty to do so, although they must accept any stray dogs
brought in to the Police Station.
All stray dogs are kept at kennels for
7 days after which they may be sold, given to The Dogs Trust
for rehoming or destroyed, although dogs are normally only
destroyed if they are very ill or vicious.
If your dog has gone missing you should
contact your local Police or your dog warden who will let
you know if it has been picked up. If you wish to reclaim the dog
you must do so within 7 days and you will have to pay the boarding
fees plus a charge of £25.
If you find a stray dog, you are required
by law to return it to the owner or to contact the dog warden
who will arrange to collect it. If you find a stray dog outside
of normal office hours you must take it to the nearest police station.
If you wish to keep the dog, you must
have written permission from the police or dog warden, and
you will have to keep it for at least one month.
Q. I found a stray four years
ago, checked with the police and advertised the fact I had
found the dog through the local paper. Nobody claimed
it. The dog has become a bosom pal and works a treat in the
beating line. Through a number of coincedences the dog's
previous owners have found out that it now lives with me - and want
it back. Do I have any rights in the matter, or do I have to
give it back? If so, what can I do to keep it legally?
A. Even stray dogs have owners.
If you keep a stray without the explicit approval of
either the local council or the police you would be committing
an offence but from what you say you did get clearance from the
police.
My local council dog warden tells me that
after 28 days you are entitled to presume you are the owner.
How do the alleged orevious owners know it is their dog?
One dog can look very much like another and recognising a
particular dog after four years may prove difficult. Presumably
it is not chipped and did not have a collar with the mandatory tag
otherwise it would speedily have been returnd to its rightful owners.
Its up to them to prove it's theirs before
you even consider handing it back.
Barking dogs
Constant barking and howling
is annoying to neighbours and could result in us taking legal
action against you for causing a noise nuisance.
Boarding Kennels
The Animal Boarding Establishment
Act 1963 requires boarding kennels for cats and dogs to be licensed
by your local authority.
Dog Breeding
Under the Breeding and Sale
of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999, no person can keep a breeding establishment
for dogs except under a licence granted by your local authority.
If you own 5 or more breeding bitches and they produce 5 or more litters
per year or your premises are used solely for the purpose of breeding
dogs then you will require a Dog Breeding Licence.
Collar and identity tags
Under the Control of Dogs
Order 1992, all dogs must wear a collar and identity tag in a public
place. The tag must show the owner’s name and address. The dog
wardens enforce this law and fines of up to £5000 can be
given by the Courts for an offence.
Always make sure that your dog wears
a collar and tag, even if microchipped.
Microchipping
One of the best ways to ensure
that your dog is returned if it is lost is to have it microchipped.
A tiny microchip (the size of a grain
of rice) is painlessly inserted in the skin at the back of
the dog’s neck. This has a unique code number which is entered
onto a national PetLog computer database together with the owner’s
name and address. If the dog is found, a scanner is passed
over the microchip and the owner can be identified.
Dangerous dogs
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991,
bans the ownership, breeding, sale (both national and international)
and exchange of certain types of fighting dogs – the ban currently
covers pure breeds and cross breeds with the same physical and
behavioural characteristics as the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese
Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. The maximum fine for
having a banned dog is £5000 and/or 6 months in prison and
the dog may be destroyed.
Section 3 of the act applies to all dogs
that are dangerously out of control in a public place (it
does not apply to dogs in their own garden who jump up at visitors).
If a dog acts in a way in which someone fears they will be attacked,
then an offence is committed. The fines are up to £5000
and/or 6 months in prison and the Courts may order the dog to be
destroyed.
A Police Officer or dog warden may seize
a banned dog or a dog that is dangerously out of control.
If you wish to report a dangerous dog, contact the Police
or the dog wardens . The Courts can also issue a warrant for
the police to enter a building and seize a dog.
For further information about
your dog and the law- contact your local authority Dog Warden.
Steps
to Take if Your Animal is Attacked by Another Animal.
Make a note of the offending dog's owner's
name and address, together with the dogs name.
Take names and addresses of any witnesses
who might have seen the incident.
Try to establish the sex of the attacking
animal, particularly if more than one animal is owned.
If your dog needs veterinary treatment,
ask for a receipt for fees paid.
Photograph the injuries immediately and
ask your vet/ the attending vet to sign them (the animals
fur grows quickly over the scars and the injuries are hard
t describe at a later date)
Inform the police of the attack as soon
as possible and request that it be recorded in the Dog Bite
Register, giving full details as out-lined in 1-3 above.
As for an officer to accompany you to
the owner's home in order to identify the offending dog(s)
Show the office the injuries caused to
your animal.
If a court case is to be taken out for
compensation for your animals injuries, keep copies of all
evidence, photographs and correspondence. Failing to do this
may result in the defendants or their solicitors destroying your
documents or saying they have never received same.
As far as we can gather the police have
the power to prosecute the owner of a dangerous dog under
the Dogs Act 1906. Dogs Amendment Act 1928 and Dog Act 1871
with a view to obtaining a control order. Dangerous does not
only mean to humans; the fact that the dog chased and injured cattle
or poultry will suffice.
It is most important to make sure dog
attacks on other dogs (clearly distinct from dog fights)
should be recorded in the DOg Bite Register, since we understand
that action will only be taken against persistent offenders, i.e.
after the 2nd or 3rd incident.
NB Appeal may be made to the County Court
against an order for the dog to be destroyed but NOT against
an order to keep the dog under control.
back to top
Dog Legal Advice
If you are a
dog owner in England and Wales, it is surprising how easy it can be
for your dog to cause you legal problems. Cooper & Co Solicitors
- specialists in Dog Law offer a telephone advice service
on
0906 515 1108. Calls
cost £1.50 per minute from a Bt landline or contact them on
their website :-
www.doglaw.co.uk
If you
are a dog owner, it is surprising how easy it can be for your dog
to cause you legal problems. We are a specialist Solicitor's
firm, as we defend cases involving dogs. Although we are based in Kent,
we take on cases throughout England and Wales.
In the pages on this site, we give you brief details
of the areas where you may need assistance. However, this
is not intended to be a complete listing of all the kinds of cases
where we may be able to help you. If the particular problem that
you have is not mentioned, please contact us.
You can contact us for a free initial telephone
consultation, or if you prefer, you can e-mail us, fax us, or
write by post.
Justice For Dogs.
Registered
Charity No:1092084
Founder: Ann L M Harpwood
Finloren
Cottage * Weythel * Old Radnor * Powys * LD8 2RR
Telephone and Fax: 02544 370213
A totally
unique and exciting concept making this the only charity of its
kind anywhere in the world.
Providing a free complete
advisory service to all dog owners anywhere and everywhere
on any and every aspect of canine ownership --- legal, veterinary
(traditional and alternative), nutritional, behavioural etc.
Did you know that
there is a registered Charity in existence which you can contact if you have
difficulties arising in connection with dog-ownership. They will advise
and assist you in dealing with problems no matter what those problems are
and their membership fee is very small - just £15. for an Organisation
or Club; £9. for a joint membership and just £6. for a single
membership. They are called Justice for Dogs and have been in
existence for over 14 years. Just telephone Ann Harpwood (Founder and
Trustee) on 02544 370213
**************
Dog Legislation Advisory
Group
(DLAG)
back to top
******************
One
Mans Experience
Jan 3rd 2006.
Here are the facts as I remember them. I hope
that they will be of some value to other people and a warning
to all dog owners.
My wife and I are 63 years old and have owned
two G.S.D. bitches some years ago, so have had experience with
the breed.
We now have two sisters of about seven years
old and a large mongrel bitch of eight years of age. We have
never had them insured, preferring to meet whatever vet bills
come our way and accepting the costs. They are all of good temperament
as can be vouched for by my vet. Could you send me a copy of your magazine
if you publish my account? I still find it difficult to believe that
it is all over. I will attach a picture of the dogs with me in the lane.
Add another person and you can see that there was very little room to
pass!
On August 19th 2002, I was walking my three
dogs along a country bye-way, back to my car after their walk.
I was with a French student who was staying with me for two
weeks (he was the third). We were walking between two hedges on
rough ground and occupied most of the track. Without any warning, two
teen-age cyclists rushed between the hedge on my left hand side and
my dog, Pollyanna, from behind. This startled the student, myself
and my dogs as they were peddling flat out!
I made the comment to the student that they
might have given some warning that they were approaching. A
few moments later another, older cyclist (the father of one of
the boys), hurried by to my left, close enough to touch. The track
here is very narrow. He had a clear view of the situation ahead of
him.
He too had given no warning of his approach
from behind and we did not know that he was coming. Pollyanna
was walking at my left side close to me at heel and the other two
dogs were to my right and slightly behind me with the French boy.
I had no chance to command the dogs to go down, as I have in all other
cases of walking this track-way. I have used this area to walk my dogs
for nearly four years before, without any incident.
Pollyanna yelped, bumped into my leg causing
me to stumble and turned to the left, possibly nipping the cyclist
on the leg. I am sure that he either touched her with his pedal
or came so close that she reacted. He said she had bitten him removing
a piece of skin about the size of the face of a watch glass, or
he could have grazed it with his pedal. The wound was not bleeding
and did not look serious. He stopped and asked who the F…k I was
and reached into his bag for his mobile phone, stating that he was
going to phone the police and an ambulance.
In a state of shock, I apologised profusely
and begged him not to report the incident in fear of my dog
being put down. He eventually agreed at that time and cycled on
to meet his two companions who were out of sight. I returned to
my car, which was out of sight of the incident and put the dogs into
the boot. I then passed the three cyclists about a quarter of a mile
along the single track road peddling home.
The following day, I had a visit by the police
who had been told that I had refused to give my name and address.
I explained the situation to the constable, who asked to see the
dog responsible. Having met the dog and asserting that she was not
by nature vicious, he returned to speak to the cyclist. On the constable’s
return he said that he thought that the man would not be taking the
matter further, but would probably be looking for compensation and not
to offer him any money.
Two weeks later I received a phone call from
the cyclist. I passed the phone over to my wife, after he had
told me that he had had the wound cleaned three times and once
under a general anaesthetic. Then he told my wife that he has spoken
to two solicitors. He also told her that he would require a skin graft
and three days in hospital. He then made it plain that he would be
looking for compensation, at this time intimating, £1000 to £2000.
My wife replied that we would like to settle out of court if possible.
My wife did not agree to pay him, but said to him if this was the case
we would like this done legally.
He said that if it were not settled out of
court, he would involve the police again and take the matter
to a civil court. Then he said perhaps we would wait until all
the treatment has been finished in case the skin graft does not
take. He went on to say that he would ask £2000 for the loss
of his cycling holiday and £2000 for the pain and discomfort
he had suffered. My wife asked for this to be put in writing and he said
that he would.
On receiving his solicitor’s letter (a ‘No
win no Fee’) stating that the dogs were not muzzled or on leads.
I contacted my own solicitor, who wrote to his to make it plain,
that as no warning had been given of his approach, I had no case
to answer. Also that there is a code of practise that cyclists should
give warning of their approach to walkers and horses and give way.
There is also no law that instructs a dog owner to muzzle and leash
the dogs in that area. He also enclosed a letter from my vet attesting
that he had treated the two dogs since they were puppies and that they
were not of a vicious nature.
Within a few days, the next thing that happened
was that I was summoned to the police station to give a statement
for investigation for criminal prosecution. This was in November.
The police got in touch with me within two weeks, to say that
they considered that there was no case to answer. I paid my solicitor’s
bill in February and thought that the matter had been settled.
A year passed by and my solicitor informed
me, that the Mr.B. has started up the proceedings again, after
acquiring additional funding. This would appear to be after a
recent case involving horses, being panicked, jumping a hedge and
injuring a passer-bye. The inference being, that this would apply
to a dog owner, who although in control of their dog, is still liable
if someone is injured by their own actions. I had no funding except
my own savings. The whole thing had become a nightmare.
I now had two statements from Mr.B however.
a. (First statement,
27th Sept 2002) Two of the dogs were nosey and sniffed around
my legs as I passed at walking pace. Both dogs disappeared behind
me. I was then suddenly bitten on the right calf.
b. (Second statement,
16th May 2004) We think you would agree that it is common ground
that Pollyanna was frightened by the two preceding cyclists
and Mr.B. suffered the consequences. It is not normal for dogs
to bite people but it is a normal characteristic for a dog to bite
when it is frightened and we hope that this point is agreed.
This was brought to my solicitor’s attention
dated 7th March 2004.
I asked my solicitor;-
Dogs that are nosey are not in a frightened
state! Would it be possible to ask what frightened state the
cyclist thought my dogs were in and why he has changed his version
of the events?
1. There is a two-year gap between these statements.
In between these times, I was re-called by the police, to provide
a statement with a view to prosecution. They considered that
there was insufficient evidence to proceed and would not be taking
the matter further.
2. Will both of these statements be presented
at court?
3. If the dogs were frightened by the son
and friend as suggested by cycling through them, then surely
they are directly to blame for the incident and they should
be the ones sued?
4. If the cyclist had a clear view and could
see that the dogs were frightened as he suggests, why did he
not slow down and give warning of his approach so that I could
increase my control of the dogs, if necessary?
To sum up: -
My dogs were not frightened and were walking
to heel. He must have thought that they were under control to
have attempted to pass in such a reckless manner. He ran his bike
along the side of Pollyanna provoking her to react as she did.
I asked; - can you instruct Mr B’s solicitor
of these facts and demand that we go to court where I shall
pursue the reclaiming of all of my expenses. He had asked for £5,000
plus all costs.
I sincerely believe that the cyclist is attempting
to rack up my bill as far as he can without it costing him anything.
We will await your instructions and will come
to see you when you deem necessary.
In the late November of 2004 I received a
letter from my solicitor stating that the Mr.B’s solicitor
had sought the advice of a Barrister on the clarification of
the law as to whether the ‘frightened horses’ case could be applied
to my dogs being frightened. The Barrister stated that if we went
to court they would have an 80% chance of winning.
My solicitor then applied to an independent
barrister to look at my position. He was of the opinion that
the cyclist was the agent in frightening the dogs if at all. Barristers
cost £500 per hour!
In the New Year 2005 after consultation, my
solicitor issued instructions to proceed with the court case
and asked for all medical records. He informed me that total
costs to me could reach £20,000 if we lost.
I had self-published a S/F novel and had booked
into two S/F conventions to promote and sell my book. I attended
one with some success. Unfortunately I began to suffer constant
insomnia that in the end, sleeping tablets could not get me to
go to sleep. I had to stop taking them and try something else.
The result was that I had a nervous breakdown
that lasted several months, before I began to slowly function
as normal after medication and counselling. I did not attend
the second show. At times I could not drive or go out of the house.
This left me with a considerable number of books with no market.
I sold my narrow boat to make sure that I had enough money to pay
the court costs.
I am still on the tablets at this time and
it has now reached the point where I must wean off them.
After Aug 19th 2005 had come and gone I contacted
my solicitor to ask if it was all over as three years had passed.
He said not until Dec 17th was over as the courts could take
that long to process the case if it had been presented on the last
day.
I am now free of this constant persecution,
but have yet to receive my solicitor’s final fee. The total
cost of this incident will be about £2,000 plus the damage
that it has done to my self-confidence. Most of all I still have
my dogs and when it comes down to it that matters the most.
Incidentally two weeks after the incident
Pollyanna snapped her ‘cruciet’ ligament and had to have her
back leg broken and reset. When all had mended, my vet dug
out 34 staples from her leg without muzzling her. He got a lick
on the ear while he worked to ease out one that was stuck!
The question that I must now ask, is where
could I get cover for public liability and how will this new
attitude of the law leave other dog owners when they take their
dogs out for a walk? The best that I have got is a house contents
policy with SAGA. It certainly bears thinking about.
Yours sincerely,
Barry E. Woodham.
reprinted with kind permission from Barry E Woodham.Science
Fiction Author
Barry.E.Woodham@btinternet
.http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/barrywoodham
The Genesis Project.
Book 1 - Genesis 2 ------------------- ISBN 0-595-33560-8.
Book 2 - The Genesis Debt.------ ISBN 978-0-595-46411-1
Book 3 - Weapon.--------------------- ISBN ----spiral bound.
Book 4 - The Genesis Search. - ISBN ----Being written.
Book 5 - Genesis 3 ; - A New Beginning.------- Planning.
back to top
*********************
High Court upholds GSD death sentence
A BID to save the life of a GSD condemned to death under
the Dangerous Dogs Act failed in a High Court appeal to determine
when a dog ‘constitutes a danger to public safety’.
The GSD dog named ‘Dino’ was found guilty of
a minor biting incident that took place in January of this
year. Dino’s owner was advised by her original solicitor to plead
guilty to the charge of ‘allowing her dog to be dangerously out
of control in a public place’ under Section 3 of the DDA. Magistrates
accepted the plea and ordered that Dino be destroyed, even though
this was the dog’s first and only offence.
The owners duly dismissed their original solicitor
and appointed a Mr Cooper to act on her behalf at a Crown Court
appeal some months later. The appeal failed, so Mr Cooper sought
Permission to Appeal to the High Court for a Judicial Review of
the case, using the legal technicality of when a dog constitutes
a danger to public safety. The hearing was scheduled to take place
on Monday, November 12th.
The owners are currently taking advice from
Mr Cooper on the possibility of one last appeal to either the
Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, still using the same legal
argument The couple have.14 days in which to decide whether to appeal.
Magistrates issued a destruction order in January
this year after Dino became involved in a fight with another
dog. The other animal’s female owner stepped in to separate them and
Dino bit her, breaking her finger.
The destruction order was challenged at Northampton
Crown Court in September, but the magistrates’ decision was
upheld, saying that Dino had attacked the other dog without any
provocation and continued to pose a danger to public safety.
It was argued that a canine behaviourist had
supported their view that the attack was ‘out of character’
and a ‘one off’, and that ordering Dino’s destruction was unreasonable
because there was evidence that the dog did not pose a threat,
and any further risk would be eliminated by fitting him with a
muzzle when in public.
The application was dismissed, and it was deemed
that both the Crown Court and magistrates had acted reasonably
and within their powers.
It was said that if a defendant could not demonstrate
to the satisfaction of a court that a dog was not a danger to
public safety, ‘the court was bound to make a destruction order’.
Editors comment
A case such as this is every dog owner’s nightmare,
and should generate thoughts of how we exercise our dogs, while
maintaining full control of their actions. We may not see
any threat in approaching other dogs and their owners, but you have
to be able to imagine how your dog sees the same situation.
We all like to think that our dogs are 100%
OK, but we have to be honest with ourselves, if only for the dogs’
sake. I could never forgive myself if any of my dogs were placed
in Dino’s situation through my own arrogance, and lack of control.
Do you feel comfortable meeting every stranger
while you are out shopping or walking? You may not be able
to explain why you are not; it may be body language, or the look
in their eyes, but you side step to avoid them.
Or, How many times have you suffered a ‘Bad
Day’ ~ A day when the smallest gesture, or word out of place,
generates an outburst that would not occur at any other time?
How can we demand that our dogs should not
feel the same undetermined threat, or emotion?
As for someone that wades in to separate scrapping
dogs with their bare hands!!! ~ Would you, and not expect to
sustain any sort of injury?!
Lords Refuse Dino Appeal
The House of Lords Judicial Committee has refused
the appeal to save the life of Dino, the 5-year-old GSD.
The appeal was lodged just after Christmas by
solicitor Trevor Cooper who has been handling the case of 5-year-old
Dino since his initial appeal against destruction.
Dino was sentenced to death early last year
after his owner pleaded guilty to a minor biting incident under
Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act, arising from an incident
when Dino got into a fight with another dog and the other dogs owner
was nipped in the ensuing fracas.
Following the High Court Appeals, Dino’s case
was then referred to the House of Lord Judicial Office to see
if whether permission would be granted to appeal to the House of
Lords.
DINO
PETITION GOES TO EUROPE
The
fight to save the life of German Shepherd Dino is due to be lodged
with the European Court of Human Rights this week. The petition
will be ‘couriered’ to Strasbourg where it will be decided whether
the case can go ahead or not. After the House of Lords backed every
other court in the land and ruled that seven-year-old Dino must die
for biting the hands of the woman who was breaking up a fight between
him and her terrier – owner Bryan and Carol Lamont vowed to keep their
dog alive, whatever it took. Subsequently, their solicitor, Dangerous
Dogs Act (DDA) expert Trevor Cooper, has spent the past four months preparing
to take the battle to Europe and his hard work came to fruition this
week. The complaint is to be made against the British Government that
sections three and four of the DDA are unlawful. A section three prosecution
concerns cases where a dog is said to have been dangerously out of control
in a public place; section four is the punishment attached to that: destruction.
“The complaint takes the form of a petition on points of European law,”
Mr Cooper explained. “We are saying that the sections’ construction
is unfair and its effect is arbitrary, and further that it is a breach
of European law.” The Lamonts should receive an acknowledgement that
the petition has been received and the matter will then be put before
a committee where it will be decided whether the case can proceed. “If
not, that is the end of it,” Mr Cooper said. “If it does go ahead the
complaint can then be served on the Government.” Since it became known
that the Lamonts’ legal bill had stretched to in excess of £20,000,
DOG WORLD readers have provided a steady stream of donations to
the ‘Save Dino’ fund. So far their contributions have topped £2,000.
“People have been very sweet and it is thanks to the generosity of
your readers that we have been able to get this far,” Mr Cooper said.
“Let’s see how much further we can push it. And let’s not forget that
this dog has done nothing wrong.”
Late breaking news:
Following the much publicised court appearance
of the Princess Royal under a similar Section 3 charge, Solicitor
Trevor Cooper has written to the Crown Prosecution Service pointing
out that, in Dinos case, the CPS indicated that it was ‘not in its
powers’ to issue a Contingent Destruction Order upon Dino, whereby
the dog would be released, but, if he offended again he would be destroyed.
However, in the case of Dotty, the dog belonging to the Princess
Royal, CPS allowed the court to make a Contingent Destruction Order.
Mr Cooper stated, “It is an obvious discrepancy. CPS cannot be right
in both cases. Either the ruling for Dino was wrong, or the ruling
for Dotty was wrong…………. I would hope that they will re examine Dinos
case in the light of this. I await their reply with interest.”
Dino the
dog has his day as judge lifts death order
After
three years, £60,000 in legal fees and the intervention
of an animal behaviourist, in the end it was a 12-minute video that
saved Dino the dog yesterday.
Judge Patrick Eccles QC, lifted a death sentence
that had been hanging over Dino since an unfortunate incident
in 2001 when he bit a woman in a park after a confrontation with her
terrier Ralph. The video suggested that the alsatian was a reformed
character.
His owner, Bryan Lamont - who turned to the Criminal
Cases Review Commission in his fight to save his pet from a lethal
injection under the Dangerous Dogs Act - sat with a team of animal
experts behind him at Northampton crown court as his lawyers fought
for a permanent reprieve.
In the end, none of them was needed. The short
film, made by an animal behaviourist, showed Dino frolicking peacefully
with canine pals and was enough to persuade the judge that the
dog was more pussy cat than public threat.
Judge Eccles was moved to quote Hamlet: "'Every
dog will have his day,' said the Bard, and Mr Lamont's devotion
has allowed Dino to have his day." He added: "If a Scotsman with
deep pockets and spirit takes on the judiciary to vindicate his dog,
the contest is likely to be vigorous and prolonged."
Dino, aged seven, was not in court to hear his
death sentence lifted. He was where every dog should be while
the master is out - guarding the homestead in East Hunsbury, Northampton.
The Lamont house is evidence itself of the long and vigorous battle
to save Dino's life since he was put under a destruction order for
biting Elizabeth Coull, who had tried to intervene between him and
her terrier.
As well as exhausting all avenues in the courts
- including the House of Lords and the European court of human
rights - Mr Lamont and his wife, Carol, have been determined over
the past three years to show that Dino is not a threat to anyone.
They built 6ft fences around their home, used padlocks on the gates
to ensure Dino could not escape and took him for walks wearing a muzzle.
They engaged animal behaviourists to assess Dino
and finally turned to the group responsible for sending potential
miscarriages of justice to the appeal court.
In testimony to the Criminal Cases Review Commission,
Roger Mugford, an animal behaviourist, said: "We think a death
sentence is a bit extreme. The dog is now substantially reformed.
He has passed those teenage years."
As a result, the commission concluded there was
"a real possibility that the destruction order ... would not be
upheld if it were referred", and it sent Mr Lamont's conviction,
for allowing Dino to be out of control in a public place, back to
Northampton crown court.
Mr Lamont said later that he was "absolutely delighted"
with the reprieve.
The first thing he did was phone his wife, who
was at home with Dino, waiting for news.
"She's absolutely over the moon," he said.
back to top
**************************
Extract
from article in PRO Dogs magazine:
The "6 dog rule" ~ cause for concern?
A Prodogs
member brought to our attention a matter which may prove troublesome
to many multi dog households, such as breeders or exhibitors.
During a visit to his home by a Planning Enforcement
Officer from the local authority, our member was informed that
the keeping of 6 or more dogs required planning permission, for
the house is no longer considered simply a "dwelling place".
This, he said, was a result of a 'guidance note'
or 'unwritten rule' known to all the local authorities, and
on checking around, the existence of such guidance was, indeed,
known to other LA's
Through the Dog Legislatory Advisory Group (on
which Mike Findlay sits) we are trying to establish the origins
of this advice ~ which, incidentally, does not apply to cats,
horses or, indeed other animals!
We are trying to establish how often this 'rule'
is enforced, and by which LA's.
Advice from Trevor Cooper, a lawyer with special
expertise in the world of dogs, was that the 'rule' had been
enforced to his knowledge, and in the 2 cases he knew of which went
to appeal at law, both lost in favour to the planners.
Our member, who lives for his chosen breed, has
custom built kennels in a converted stable block to house his
retired breeding and show dogs, and emphasizes that there have been
absolutely no complaints from neighbours (he lives in a rural area).
He was given a completely clean bill of health from the local dog
warden who works for the same council.
We still await some answers by the local council
involved to some very basic questions such as:
"Change of use to what?"
"Why does this only apply to dogs?"
"Why the random figure of 6 dogs, irrespective
of the size of the animals and size of the facilities"
back to top
************************
Court spares dangerous dog
01 February 2006 | 11:52
A German
Shepherd puppy which jumped on a boy out playing with friends
was spared a death sentence by magistrates in Huntingdon.
Under provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act, it was
at the discretion of magistrates whether 16-month-old Tara should
be destroyed, after causing injury to a child.
Owner Carol Burrell, of Robin Terrace, Alconbury,
admitted being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in
a public place, after an incident in Sparrow Drive in the village on
June 20.
The boy was pinned to the ground by the dog, suffering
abrasions to his left wrist and elbow.
The court heard how the youngster was out playing
with friends in the early evening, when the German Shepherd escaped
from its owners' back garden.
Prosecuting, John Goodier said the dog began chasing
the children, and the victim ran round a parked car and then
tripped over on the green, where the animal jumped on him.
The boy told police he was unsure whether the dog
bit him or scratched him, but friends pointed out to him that his
arm was bleeding, Mr Goodier said.
The victim had already been scared of dogs, the court
heard, and the episode had caused him distress.
John Crisp, for Burrell, said the owner "obviously
regretted" the incident and had been to visit the victim's mother
to express this sentiment.
The puppy had been nine months old at the time and
had been ill-treated before it came to its new owners, six weeks
earlier, the court heard.
Mr Crisp said the puppy was excitable and had played
with the owners' grandchildren without any problem.
He told the court the back gate, from where Tara
escaped, was now permanently padlocked, and the puppy was muzzled
when taken for walks.
Magistrates fined Mrs Burrell £150 and
ordered her to pay £50 compensation to the victim
and £50 costs.
"We have decided not to destroy the dog, but make
an order that she is kept under proper control and is muzzled whenever
she goes outside," the chairman of the bench said.
back to top
*********************
AS-BOW FOR BITING BOYS
A DOG has
been given an ASBO -an Anti-Social Biting Order.
Gizmo, a four-year-old German Shepherd, bit the bottoms
of two boys and is now forbidden from leaving his home unless he
is muzzled and on a lead.
Blackpool magistrates found owner Peter Blundle, 31,
guilty of two offences of having a dangerous dog not under control.
Gizmo bit the boys, aged 10 and 14, in the street.
back to top
*******************
New
Dog Control Orders
Attention all Dog owners
Please be aware
of the new Dog Control Orders, which are now being enforced around
the country. Every council now has the power to place restrictions
on where you can walk your dog, so please check with your local authority
to find out if and how these orders will affect you.
For more information please visit http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/item/295 This website
shows which local authorities are proposing Dog Control Orders.
back to top
******************
Q.
My non-pedigree labrador escaped recently and 'squired' a neighbours pedigree
labrador stud bitch. He's threatening to sue me for loss of earnings
saying that the unwanted mating was down to my negligence. Can
he do this?
A. As the owner of the dog it is your responsibility
to keep it under control and you could be liable for any damage it causes
in the event that you don't. You don't say where the event occurred
but the wise owner of a bitch keeps it somewhere out of harms way when it
is in season. If the bitch wasn't under control either then it weakens
any case your neighbour might have. Even non pedigree labradors have
a value so I think it would be very difficult for your neighbour to quantify
the loss he might have suffered. Taking the matter to court would
hardly be worth his while but if you really think it was your fault then
I am sure you can come to an amicable agreement.
*******************
