Dangerous dogs sentencing guidelines proposed

 
Muzzled pit bull terrier Pit bull terriers were one of the types of dog banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act

Related Stories

Judges have published the first proposed sentencing guidelines for people convicted for dangerous dogs offences in England and Wales.

The proposals come 20 years after the controversial Dangerous Dogs Act became law in the UK.

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales says it hopes the guidelines will ensure consistent and proportionate sentencing.

More than 1,700 people were prosecuted over dangerous dogs in 2010.

Ministry of Justice figures show that between 2009 and 2010 the number of people sentenced for dangerous dog offences rose from 855 to 1,192.

The government estimates that treating dog injuries costs the NHS more than £3m a year.

The Sentencing Council, which advises courts on the appropriate punishments within the range set out by Parliament, said it was proposing a starting point of a community order for people who allow a dog to cause injury while it is out of control.

Dangerous dogs banned in UK

  • Pit Bull Terrier
  • Japanese Tosa
  • Dogo Argentino
  • Fila Brasileiro

However, it said there should still be a wide degree of discretion.

The maximum sentence is two years.

People convicted of the lesser offence of possessing a banned dog should face a fine, said the council, with jail reserved for only the most extreme cases.

The council said that courts should order a dog's destruction unless it is satisfied that the animal would not pose a risk to the public, such as through muzzling and control at all times. Courts need not automatically consider destroying a dog in minor cases.

Case study

Kelvin Hopkins, Labour MP for Luton North

"I was delivering leaflets in an election campaign and put my hand through a letter box and got my finger bitten. It broke the skin and I had to have an injection for tetanus but otherwise I was alright. But my friend Joe Benton, the MP for Bootle, had the top of his finger bitten off in the last election.

"I suspect the dog that I was bitten by was a weapon dog - a guard dog of some sort but I didn't pursue it.

"I do believe that the legislation is inadequate. The RSPCA, the Police Federation and lots of other organisations have put forward a manifesto of six measures - the first is all dogs should be chipped with the owner so you can tie the dog to the owner.

"They put forward a lot of sensible proposals which I think would avoid getting to the situation where people go to prison.

"Overall dog owners are very good people and they have very well-behaved dogs but there is a minority who deliberately own and even breed dogs for aggressive purposes and those are the ones we've got to target."

The guidelines do not cover people who deliberately use dogs to attack because those incidents should lead to prosecutions for assault or more serious violent crimes.

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has long been one of the most controversial pieces of legislation on the statute book.

Critics accused the then government of rushing it into law under media pressure and that it has failed to achieve its aims.

A government consultation in 2010 revealed the public to be still sharply divided on the law.

The key offences under the Act are: a dog dangerously out of control, causing injury; a dog dangerously out of control; possession of a banned dog; breeding, selling or exchanging a banned dog.

But the Sentencing Council said its proposals, which would not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland, would help magistrates who have to deal with the vast majority of cases brought before the courts.

Anne Arnold, district judge and a member of the Sentencing Council, said: "We want to ensure that irresponsible dog owners who put the public at risk are sentenced appropriately.

"Our guideline gives guidance to courts on making the best use of their powers so that people can be banned from keeping dogs, genuinely dangerous dogs can be put down and compensation can be paid to victims."

The Sentencing Council's consultation closes on 8 March 2012.

 

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    -7

    Comment number 63.

    Something does need to be done about who can own a pet, here in london a couple of years ago my then housemate a very nice guy, was mugged at dog point, for some they are seen as an alternative to using a knife and even trained aggresively, perhaps musling all dogs would not be a bad idea and giving dog curfews and it is fair as owning a dog is a choice not a right (unless blind).

  • rate this
    +15

    Comment number 62.

    The dog licence brigade will be signing on here. Dog tax, more for the Treasury as it will not be ring fenced for animal welfare. Licences only bought by responsible people who would look out for their dogs anyway. The criminals, people with dangerous dogs, won't pay, and the law will not chase them.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 58.

    All dogs should be licensed, chipped to a registered responsible owner. Anyone breeding dogs should be licensed also. Dogs should also have a 12 month health check up, that the owner pays for and ensure it is inoculated against Parvo etc. We do this for horses in this country so why not dogs ???

  • rate this
    +20

    Comment number 56.

    Several commentators, presumably not dog owners, suggest that paying hundreds of pounds for a dog licence will stop the problem of dangerous dogs, but fail to say how. Any responsible dog owner will comply with the law requiring the dog to wear an id disc in public and will most likely have it microchipped and registered on a national database so it is identifiable.

  • rate this
    +14

    Comment number 48.

    Ive worked with dogs for the last 45 years and there are dogs and dogs. There also owners and owners. When the two do not marry then there will be a problem. It might just be the dog owns the owner or the owner really owns the dog. In either case the dog will defend the owner. So my argument would be the DDA law does not cover all dogs. A Terrier breed can be just as dangerous as a Pit bull.

 

Comments 5 of 11

 

More UK stories

RSS

Features

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.