Dangerous dogs legislation must be improved to be fit for purpose, argues Chris Laurence


A recent article in the Gazette rightly pointed out some of the inadequacies of the current dangerous dogs legislation (see [2008] Gazette, 24 April, 30).



A group of interested bodies called the Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) has been considering what revisions should be made to the legislation to make it fit for purpose.



The primary deficits of the legislation are that it concentrates on penalising the person in charge of a dog after it has caused injury, and that it assumes a dog's behaviour is linked to its appearance. Of course there should be penalties for allowing a dog to cause injury, but that should be the last resort - prevention is better than cure.





Control orders

DDASG suggests that new legislation should be introduced along the lines of the Dogs Act 1871. Control orders, similar to ASBOs, would give local authorities and police improved powers to deal with dogs showing unprovoked aggression. This could have prevented the deaths of several children attacked recently if properly enforced. It could also allow the Post Office to provide better protection for delivery officers, some of whom have received horrific injuries.



An order might be to keep the dog on a lead and muzzled when in a public place, to enforce attendance at dog-training classes or with a behaviourist, to ensure a dog-proof fence around a property, or to remove the dog to a specified re-homing organisation. This section of the new legislation should be civil and apply both in public and all other areas.



The criminal legislation in section 3 of the act should be clarified and should also apply everywhere.



Section 1 of the act is based on the hypothesis that dogs that have a certain appearance are likely to be aggressive. Recent work in Germany assessing banned breeds and, comparing the results with golden retrievers, a breed generally considered benign, showed no difference in the assessment scores between the breeds. We would contend that the way in which a dog behaves is more a result of its upbringing and training than its genetic make-up. The numbers of dog bites treated by A&E units is increasing, as are resultant hospital admissions, and we consider all this to be irrefutable evidence that section 1 is ineffective.





Political suicide

However, we also realise that repealing section 1 would be political suicide. The next time a person was bitten by a banned type, the press would inevitably attack the politician. Although DDASG would wish to repeal this section, we accept that it must remain.



But the effects of the section can be mitigated by allowing a minor change. Because the act is based on a dog's appearance it is possible to innocently purchase, say, a boxer-cross puppy and have it grow up to appear to be a pit bull terrier type. The current legislation makes ownership of the dog illegal unless it is registered on the index. However, the index closed in 1991 and additional dogs may only be added by a magistrate's court following seizure by the police if the dog can be shown not to be aggressive. The process is long and convoluted and the dogs held in kennels inevitably suffer. DDASG suggests that the index should be open, allowing any person owning such a dog to register it voluntarily if they can show it is not aggressive.



Sadly, Westminster has stated it has no intention of amending any dangerous dogs legislation. But Alex Neil MSP does intend to introduce a private member's bill to the Scottish Parliament to implement the majority of the DDASG proposals and gained solid support in consultation, so there is an excellent chance it will reach the Scottish statute book. If it does, the Scottish Parliament will, once again, be leading the way in animal welfare-related legislation.



Chris Laurence is veterinary director of The Dogs Trust