Dog Control Bill ; Responsibility for dogs, control of dogs and reasonable cause.

Section (1) (1)-(4)- Responsibility for dogs . (no suggested amendments)

This section lays out who is responsible for a dog. Those deemed to be responsible for a dog are as follows:

Section (1)(1) The person responsible for a dog on a temporary or permanent basis even if it is not their dog.

Section (1)(2) being responsible for a dog includes being in charge of the dog even if not their dog.

Section (1)(3) The person who owns the dog shall always be regarded as being responsible for the dog.

Section (1)(4) If a child under 16 years of age is in charge a dog the responsibility will rest with whoever is meant to have the care and control of that child.

Section 2 control of dogs

This section outlines how dogs should be controlled and what constitutes and offence and any defences that may be allowed. DDA Watch had grave concerns on this section and raised those points to the Kennel Club as secretariat of the DDASG who are responsible for drawing up this bill. DDA Watch are pleased to see that some of our conerns are dealt with by way of some of the suggested amendments.

Section 2 (1) (a) originally stated no person shall allow a dog to be aggressive or dangerously out of control in public or private. This is a change to the current Dangerous Dogs Act which does not cover private property where a dog is allowed to be.

The suggested amendments change the following points;
The amendments suggest removing the words “ aggressive or” making section 2 (1)(a) now mean it will be an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in public or private but will NOT be an offence for a dog to be aggressive in private or public.

This is an amendment which DDA Watch feel must be passed as many dogs may appear aggressive for a number of reason and yet may be under control or of no threat.

Section 2(1) (b) makes it an offence to encourage a dog to be aggressive or intimidate people or other animals. The amendments suggest it should be an offence to encourage a dog for which a person is responsible to be aggressive or to intimidate other people or protected animals.

Amending animal to protected animal is a positive move. A protected animal is an animal normally domesticated in the British Isles, either permanently or temporarily under a person’s control, or is not living in a wild state.

Section 2 (1) (C) makes it an offence to keep a dog that has attacked another person or protected animal without reasonable cause. Definitions of reasonable cause are given in the next section. Section 2 (1) (C) could lead to thousands of dogs having to be destroyed as they cannot legally be kept following an incident however the amendments suggest the wording should be changed to deal with this problem.

The amendments propose Section 2 (1) (C) should be changed to instead state that it would be an offence to “allow a dog for which they are responsible to attack another person or protected animal without reasonable cause. “ Ths would mean that the person  responsible for a dog  that attacks a person or protected animal  would still find themselves liable for prosecution but if found guilty, it will not be compulsory for the dog to be destroyed. ( note this does not mean the dog will certainly not be destroyed, simply that the option to keep a dog that has been proved to have attacked would still be possible if this amendment is passed to the original bill).

The amendments also suggest that a new clause be added to this section stating that the person responsible for a dog that injures a person shall be guilty of an aggravated offence. This means that in such a case, the person responsible for the dog will be liable for much harsher repercussions than a person whose dog is, for example, out of control but does not injure any person.


Section 2 (3)(a)-(d) – reasonable cause


This clause outlines what may be seen as reasonable cause in incidents that would otherwise be an offence under the control of dog’s section. If a dog falls foul of section 2 (a),(b) or (c) (control of dogs) there is a defence if;

Section 2(3)(a) -  the person attacked was in a place they were not permitted to be and was committing an offence that could lead to a custodial sentence (prison term). The amendments suggest this should be reworded to read “the person attacked was committing an offence for which the penalty could be a custodial sentence”.

Section 2(3)(aa) is a new clause suggested by the proposed amendments and states that

“the person or protected animal was in a place where it was not permitted to be which was enclosed by an adequately maintained and substantial boundaries which would reasonably be expected to be capable of restraining a dog and which was clearly marked to warn such persons against entering”

This amendment is a must have as this will mean that should a cat come into the substantial boundaries of an adequately maintained property only to find itself face to face with a non cat friendly dog, the person responsible for that dog has reasonable cause and therefore should not be liable for prosecution.

This would also give the person responsible a defence if someone trespasses onto their property. Trespassing does not lead to a custodian sentence so no defence is given under Section 2(3)(a). With regard to postal workers or visitors to the home they would have greater protection but the definitions of this section could need to be defined in a court if the law is passed.

Section 2(3)(ab) is another new clause suggested by the amendments and gives protection to dogs being lawfully used by persons licensed by the Private Security Industry Act 2001 or a person who complies with BS8517-1 (a code of practice for use of general purpose security dogs.

Section 2(3)(b) states reasonable cause may be dogs being used lawfully by a constable or person in the service of the Crown.

Section 2(3) (c) states reasonable cause may be if the dog was provoked into an attack by a person other than the person responsible for it. This is a good defence but how it would work out would be debatable as what a dog may perceive as provocation a person may not. The overall decision would likely be left to the courts leading to mixed outcomes.

Section 2(3) (d) states reasonable cause may be if the dog was being attacked by another animal. Attack is later defined as bitten mauled or injured.