All British dogs - not just the pit-bull terrier-type which caused such media hysteria three years ago - constantly live under the threat of the death penalty.

'If it has got four legs and a tail that wags and a black shiny nose - then it is at threat,' says solicitor Trevor Cooper of the Canterbury firm SharrattsFor a commercial law partner who does not own a pet, Mr Cooper certainly knows a lot about dogs.

The learning process was triggered in April by a four-year-old Alsatian bitch called Saaba.A fortnight ago, Saaba walked free.

She had spent the previous eight months on death row and at the centre of a highly public row over the merits of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA).To trim a shaggy dog story short, Saaba is a friendly family pet who had never threatened anyone until she accidentally escaped from her garden.

Cornered down an alley by a local policeman, Saaba reacted by nipping the bobby on his calf and elbow.

By his own admission, however, the injuries were not serious and required no treatment.Nonetheless, Saaba's owners were prosecuted under s.3.1 of the DDA.

That part of the legislation stipulates that if a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place and causes an injury then it becomes an aggravated offence.

Saaba's owners thought they would only receive a small fine and a bind over.

Indeed, the prosecution asked only for a restraining order under the Dogs Act 1871.But the justices' clerk reminded the court that once a guilty plea had been entered under the DDA there was no alternative: the dog must be destroyed.

The family was distraught.A local journalist friend alerted Mr Cooper.

Before meeting the family, Mr Cooper, in common with most people, had thought that the Act provided for the destruction of only certain types of dog.

But he soon discovered that the law is all encompassing, a product, he maintains, of sloppy and hasty drafting.

'It is an appalling piece of legislation.

The Act is devoid of natural justice, it gives the courts no discretion.

It is the unfairness and unjustness that got me involved,' he said.And involved he has certainly become.

The Saaba case developed into something of a media event to rival the incidents which engendered the DDA in the first place.The official Saaba appeal began with a petition in the reception area of Sharratts' main office in Canterbury.

Within a fortnight it had collected 2000 signatures.

By then, Mr Cooper and an assistant had started to distribute press releases and both the local and national media picked up the story.Celebrities, including Jilly Cooper, Carla Lane and even Brigitte Bardot from Paris, associated themselves with the campaign.

Saaba herself appeared on a range of morning television programmes, including the Big Breakfast, where she managed to take a sandwich from the hand of presenter Chris Evans without removing his fingers.At the same time, efforts continued on the legal front.

Saaba had been under a three-week destruction order to be carried out by the owners.

That was appealed by Mr Cooper on the basis of an equivocal plea which Croydon Crown Court accepted last October.

The case was sent back to the magistrates and two weeks ago the Crown Prosecution Service withdrew its claim.The Saaba case has literally transformed Mr Cooper's practice.

Normally a litigation lawyer specialising in housing association work, Mr Cooper has, since April, dealt with some 16 DDA cases.Most of that work has to be done on a pro bono basis because of a loophole in the Act.

While charges under s.3.1 fall under criminal law, the police, says Mr Cooper, have taken to applying s.5.4 which stipulates that they can pick up dogs that appear to be pit-bull terrier types and then apply directly to the magistrates for a destruction order.In those circumstances, justices have generally considered the case to be a civil not a criminal matter, making it nearly impossible for the owners to obtain legal aid.Even in criminal cases, under ss.1 and 3 of the Act, legal aid does not always cover all the potential costs involved.

Mr Cooper says the police will allow defence experts to visit a dog in custody only once.

If the owner wishes to visit the dog after that, the police charge between £200 and £300 a time, claiming they have to move the animal from its secret kennel to a neutral venue.

Mr Cooper has had to pick up that cost out of his own pocket for a client at least once.Mr Cooper acknowledges that originally his partners viewed 'doggy matters' with wariness.

'We are a commercial firm and we want to present a commercial view to the clients.

The partners cannot have me constantly on the telephone dealing with dogs.

But as it has gone on, they have understood that there are times when you have to stand up for what you believe in.'Ultimately, says Mr Cooper, the Act must be amended to allow an element of discretion regarding destruction orders.

And s.1, which applies directly to pit-bull terrier-types, should be altered.At the moment, points out Mr Cooper, the burden of proof is reversed, with the dog being presumed to be a pit-bull terrier unless the defence proves it is not.

But so far, Home Office ministers have been reluctant to acknowledge appeals for reform.In the meantime, Mr Cooper presses ahead, sandwiching in DDA cases between his normal caseload.

He is also providing some advice for cases going to the European Court of Human Rights and he is attempting to set up a network of lawyers dealing with DDA matters.

There are only a few firms in the country with any expertise, most in London.'If everybody sat back and did nothing then laws like this would stay exactly as they are,' says Mr Cooper.

At least Saaba lived to appreciate his enthusiasm.