A presentation for the University of Northumbria's Centre for Evidence & Criminal Justice Studies Research Seminar Series

1. Dangerous dogs law: leading us
down the wrong path?
Lydia Bleasdale-Hill, University of Leeds
Jill Dickinson, Sheffield Hallam University

2. Overview
• Historical development of legislation in this area
– The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
– The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014
• The intentions behind such legislation:
– responsibilising owners; and
– enhancing public safety
• Two aspects of legislation will be examined in detail:
– type-specific legislation; and
– the extension of owner-liability for dangerous dogs from
public to private spaces

3. Historical development of dangerous
dogs legislation: an overview
• Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 introduced:
– an offence of a dog being dangerously out of
control in a public place (s.3(1))
– type-specific legislation (s.1(1))
• DDA has been heavily criticised e.g.
– “a synonym for any unthinking reflex legislative
response to media hype” (Hood, 2000 at 282)
• BUT subsequent legislation has not addressed
these criticisms...

4. The extension of liability from public
to private spaces
• As a general rule, only public spaces were covered by
the earlier legislation: "any street, road or other place
(whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or
are permitted to have access“ (s.10(2) DDA 1991)
• Resulted in operational difficulties
• A distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ places had
to be drawn see e.g. Fellowes v Crown Prosecution
Service [1993] WL 964524; R v Bogdal [2008] EWCA
Crim 1

5. The extension of liability from public
to private spaces
• The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act
2014
• Extended liability for ‘dangerously out of control’
dogs from public places to private places except
in 'householder cases' where:
– the dog is in or partly in a building, or part of a
building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation
(or both), and
– attacks someone who is either:
- a trespasser; or
- who the owner of that building believes to be a trespasser.

6. The extension of liability from public
to private spaces
• Clearly, what constitutes a "dwelling" is key BUT the
Act provides no definition
– ‘the definition of the dwelling is widely understood in
English law; that it refers to the usual place of residence of
a person and there is no need to provide a separate
definition of dwelling in this legislation' (DEFRA, 2013)
– Crime and Courts Act 2013
– Public Order Act 1986, s.8
– Case-law
• 'Dwelling' is a flexible term, a question of degree depending on
how the building is used/other relevant evidence (Laird, 2013)

7. Is the legislation fit for purpose?
• Do the following aspects of the dangerous
dogs legislation:
– type-specific controls; and
– extension of liability from public to private spaces
• meet the primary aims of successive
governments, namely to:
– responsibilise owners; and
– increase public safety?

8. Responsibilising owners
• Does extending liability of owners to private
spheres responsibilise owners?
– where does the 'dwelling' begin and end?
– lack of public awareness in respect of both the
changes made and their effect
• 33% are unaware of the changes in the law
• only 23% report of those who are aware of the changes
report managing their dogs differently within the home as a
result
• 33% (misunderstanding the changes) have modified how
they manage their dogs in public
Statistics provided by National Animal Welfare Trust, 2015

9. Responsibilising owners
• Does type-specific legislation responsibilise dog-
owners?
– criticised for being over-inclusive
• ‘by subjecting all members of the target breed to regulation
regardless of prior behaviour; that is…it reaches both dangerous
and docile members of the target breed'. (Hussain, 2006)
– criticised for being under-inclusive
• only certain types banned
• difficulties in determining breed
– risks encouraging dangerous dogs issues underground
• 'their pariah status make[s] them desirable" (Harding, 2010)
– nature v nurture debate

10. Increasing public safety
• Does extending liability of owners to private
spheres increase public safety?
– lack of public awareness in respect of the changes
made and their effect
– who is a 'trespasser'?
• removes those with 'malign intent' from the protection of
the law
– 'perverse incentive for people to keep dangerous dogs
on their property for protection' (Liberty, 2013)
– legislative changes could be used to increase public
safety if they instead focused on the prevention of
dogs from attacking in first place

11. Increasing public safety
• Does type-specific legislation responsibilise
dog-owners?
– type-specific legislation retained because of risks
such dogs may pose (eg Collier, 2006)
– perceived lack of alternative options
– further research/data needed to root out causes
not symptoms

12. Conclusion
• Type-specific legislation:
– doesn't increase public safety
– is potentially damaging to both owners and dogs
• Extending law to private sphere:
– creates confusion in expectations
• Need for:
– consolidating legislation;
– research to examine motivations of dog owners; and
– supporting cultural change

13. References
• C. Hood 'Assessing the Dangerous Dogs Act: When Does a
Regulatory Law Fail?' (2000) Public Law Sum, 282-305, at 282
• National Animal Welfare Trust One Year On – Are Changes to
the Dangerous Dogs Act Effective?
http://www.nawt.org.uk/media-centre/owners-think-
dangerous-dogs-act-remains-ineffective
• K. Laird 'Conceptualising the Interpretation of ‘Dwelling’ in
Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968' [2013] Criminal Law Review
8, 656-673, as cited by L. Bleasdale-Hill ‘"Our Home is Our
Haven and Refuge - A Place Where We Have Every Right to
Feel Safe": Justifying the Use of Up to "Grossly
Disproportionate Force" in a Place of Residence’ [2015]
Criminal Law Review, 6, 407-419);
• S. Harding 'Status Dogs and Gangs', (2010) Safer Communities
9 (1) 30 at 30

14. References
• S. Gray Hussain ‘Attacking the Dog-Bite Epidemic: Why Breed-Specific
Legislation Won’t Solve the Dangerous Dogs Dilemma’ (2006) Fordham
Law Review Vol.74(5): 2847 at 2863
• Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Draft Dangerous Dogs
(Amendment) Bill: Government Response to the Committee's First Report
of Session 2013-14 September 2013,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvfru
/637/63704.htm
• S. Collier ‘Breed‐Specific Legislation and the Pit Bull terrier: Are the
Laws Justified?’ (2006) Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 1, 17-22, at 20-
21
• Liberty’s Report Stage Briefing on the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and
Policing Bill in the House of Commons (October 2013),
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/sites/default/files/Liberty-s-
Report-Stage-Briefing-on-the-ASBCP-Bill-in-the-House-of-Commons-
Oct-2013_0.pdf

15. Contact details
• Lydia Bleasdale-Hill:
E: l.k.bleasdalehill@leeds.ac.uk
Tw: @Parkendlydia
• Jill Dickinson:
E: Jill.Dickinson@shu.ac.uk
Tw: @Jill_Dickinson1