This document discusses two issues with dangerous dog laws in the UK: 1) extending criminal liability for dog owners from public to private places, and 2) ongoing use of breed-specific provisions that classify certain dogs as dangerous. It analyzes these issues in light of legislative principles of proportionality, transparency, and balancing costs and benefits. The document advocates shifting focus from banning entire dog breeds to targeting irresponsible dog ownership through more effective legislation.

1. Dangerous dogs laws: Barking up
the Wrong Tree?
Lydia Bleasdale-Hill, University of Leeds
Jill Dickinson, Sheffield Hallam University

2. Overview
• Our focus today is on two issues:
1. s.106 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act
2014, which extends criminal liability of dog owners from
public to private places in most circumstances
2. The ongoing use of breed- and type-specific provisions as
far as the classification of dogs as dangerous is concerned
• These two issues are used as a vehicle to illustrate:
1. The practical ineffectiveness of the current law in this area
and
2. How the law largely fails to adhere to principles which
arguably ought to underpin the creation of legislation

3. Overview of the history of dangerous
dogs legislation
• Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 – “a synonym for
any unthinking reflex legislative response to
media hype” (Hood, 2000 at 282)
• Introduced an offence of a dog being dangerously
out of control in a public place (s.3(1))
• Introduced type-specific legislation for the first
time
• Index of Exempted Dogs
• Heavily criticised, but the Dangerous Dogs
(Amendment) Act 1997 did not address the
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 2014 Act extended liability for ‘dangerously
out of control’ dogs from public places to private
places except 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
- The person in relation to whom the dog is
dangerously out of control (V) is in, or is entering,
the building or part as a trespasser,
- or D (if present at that time) believes V to be in,
or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.

6. The extension of liability from public to
private spaces
• Effect is that those entering private areas are
protected, unless they are trespassers within a
dwelling or are honestly believed to be
trespassers within that dwelling
• Burglars, for example, are not protected
• A child retrieving a ball from a neighbour’s
garden, for example, is protected

7. The extension of liability from public to
private spaces
• There is no agreed definition of ‘dwelling’ – a
question of degree (Maunsell v Olins and
Another [1975] 1 All ER)
• Aligns the law with private defence (Criminal
Justice and Immigration Act 2008, as amended
by the Crime and Courts Act 2013) – but at
what cost?

8. The ongoing use of type-specific
provisions
• The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act prohibits the
sale/breeding of certain types of dogs (e.g.
pitbulls), including cross-breeds
• Breed- or type-specific legislation is regarded
as necessary by some because certain breeds
of dogs are regarded as particularly prone to
violence, and several countries have similar
provisions in place

9. The ongoing use of type-specific
provisions
• There are many reservations about such
provisions though: ‘deed not breed’ - ignores
the variety of factors which influence a dog to
bite (Hussain, 2006); the difficulty in
determining whether the dog comes within
the provision (Bernstein, 2004); moves the
focus away from encouraging responsible
ownership of all dogs and unfairly penalising
responsible owners (McNeely and Lindquist,
2007)

10. Legislative principles
• Better Regulation Task Force (now defunct) Principles of
Good Legislation
• s.21 Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006
• Five fundamental principles: proportionality, accountability,
consistency, transparency, targeting
• Further supportive principles: legislation should ‘be
balanced and avoid knee-jerk reactions’, ‘seek to reconcile
contradictory policy objectives’, ‘balance risks, costs and
benefits’, ‘avoid unintended consequences’, ‘be easy to
understand’, ‘have broad public support’, ‘be enforceable’,
‘identify accountability’, and ‘be relevant to current
conditions’
• Christopher Hood (2000) 'Assessing the Dangerous Dogs
Act: when does a regulatory law fail?' Public Law Sum, 282-
305

11. Selected focus
• Transparency
• Consistency
• Balance risks, costs and benefits

12. Where do we go from here?
“The proper attention to the pit bull problem requires
the study of regulatory alternatives that will root out
the causes of the problem, rather than the symptoms.
Irresponsible human actions will continue to produce
dangerous dogs as long as legislation leaves human
conduct unchecked. Banning an entire breed from
existence will not alter irresponsible human behaviour,
nor will it reduce the number of dangerous dogs
resulting from this behaviour. A true solution requires
bringing the issue of irresponsible and inhumane
ownership to the forefront.” (Medlin, 2007, at 1318)

13. Change of approach
• Responsible owners – unproblematic, but
potentially caught up by current legislation
• Key groups
1. Irresponsible, wilfully neglectful owners
2. Those keeping dogs for fighting, as a status
symbol etc

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