Dangerous Dogs Act

What You Need to Know

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA) is the most commonly used piece of canine law although many believe the lesser used civil action of the 1871 Dogs Act is by far, a better piece of legislation. The DDA was introduced in the UK in 1991 following a spate of much publicised dog attacks by various different breeds. Made up of several sections many believe the DDA is about the four named types only.

[All breeds are covered under the Dangerous
Dogs Act, not just certain 'types'. Princess Anne
became the first royal to collect a criminal record
after her English Bull Terrier breached the act]

This is incorrect. Section 3 of the DDA covers any dog regardless of its breed or crossbreed.

Section One

Section One of the DDA made it illegal to own any of the following “types”

The Pit Bull Terrier
The Japanese Tosa
The Fila Braziliero
The Dogo Argentino

When the Act became law there where no known Fila’s or Dogo’s in the country. There was one Tosa and there where a thousands of pit bull terrier types. Owners of those dogs previously legally owned where given until March 1992 to register their dogs with the Index of Exempted Dogs in order to avoid prosecution. Registering the dogs meant the owners had to comply with the following restrictions:

The dogs had to be:

Neutered
Micro chipped
Tattooed with exemption number on the inside of the back leg
Kept on lead at all times in a public place
Muzzled at all times in a public place
Not to be owned or walked by a person under 16 years of age
To be covered by third party liability insurance cover.

Once the Index closed in March 1992 any dogs deemed to be “type” by a court were automatically ordered to be destroyed. There wasn’t any other option open to the courts until 1997(see below for more details) and before that date many dogs of good temperament where destroyed under the DDA.

The idea behind the Act was that with all the dogs being neutered those “types” of dogs would die out. 17 years on, the Act has clearly failed to achieve this goal.

Weaknesses in the DDA

The problems with the law began even before it was drawn up. The law does not ban four breeds of dog; it bans four “types”. Pit Bull Terrier’s and the three other breeds where not recognised by the government. This meant there wasn’t a breed standard defining what any of the breeds actually looked like. With this in mind the government decided that the word “type” should be used however they failed to properly define what was meant by “type”.

Home Office 1992 – “Under the Act any dog which has the characteristics of the type known as a pit bull terrier is regarded as being of that type, irrespective of parentage.”
Home Office 1992 – “In this country the pit bull terrier is generally regarded as being a cross between a bull breed of dog and larger dogs like the mastiff. It may also, however, be obtained by breeding or cross-breeding pit bull terriers themselves.”

Home Office 1992 – “Whether section 1 of the Act applies to any particular cross will depend on whether the resulting dog is of the type known as the pit bull terrier – that is to say, whether it has the physical and behavioural characteristics of the pit bull terrier.”

With so much confusion about, when cases began to go through the courts it was up to the judge to determine whether any dog was “of type” and to define the meaning of the word.

In 1993 the Queen’s Bench Divisional Court (appeal court) decided that

“a dog of the type known as a Pit Bull Terrier is an animal approximately amounting to, near to, having a substantial number of characteristics of the Pit Bull Terrier”

The court also ruled that the relevant breed standard for assessing whether a dog is or is not of the type should be that of the ADBA(American dog breeders association). Since part of that breed standard concerned the dog’s behaviour, the court ruled that evidence of a dog’s behavioural characteristics was relevant, but not conclusive.

This ruling created “Case Law” meaning that all future cases followed this definition. However by defining the word type in such a way the law then began to spill out to cover other legal breeds and cross breeds. Any dog, regardless of the breed or cross breed could have a substantial number of characteristics of a Pit Bull Terrier. A dog does not need to have all the characteristics, just a substantial amount and the law is regardless of the parentage of the dog. This resulted in KC regged staffords being destroyed and litters of puppies being split as to whether they where pit bull type or not. Behaviour of the dog being deemed relevant but not conclusive when deciding whether a dog is “type” or not, meant that dogs with good temperaments could still be deemed type and therefore dangerous by law.

By stating irrelevant of parentage it means it is irrelevant if you can prove a dogs parents are legal breeds. If a dog looks like a pit bull type, it becomes one unless you can prove it looks more like another breed.

The burden of proof was also reversed. Unlike in every other law where a person is innocent until proved guilty, the DDA means once an allegation has been made, it is up to the defendant to prove their dog is not of “type”. The prosecution do not have to prove a dog is a pit bull type. An owner has to prove it isn’t. This is incredibly difficult to do given the definition of “pit bull type” The reversal of the burden of proof was challenged in the High court and the European commission however it was upheld as law.

In 1997 the DDA was amended to remove mandatory destruction of dogs brought before a court. While this amendment saved many lives it also showed just how flawed the law is. The amendment stated that if a dog was deemed to be pit bull type but the owner could show he was a responsible owner and the dog posed no danger to the public, the judge could order the dog to be registered with the Index of exempted dogs and not be destroyed, however there is still the presumption of destruction. So on one hand the law says a breed of dog is a dangerous breed but then accepts that this isn’t the case for the whole breed and each dog should be judged on its merits.

Since the amendment many dogs have been entered onto the index. To date there has never been a situation where a registered dog has gone on to attack anyone.

While the amendment was a literally life saving change, the Index remained closed. This means that the only way you can legally register a dog is to be taken to court either by civil or criminal law. You cannot apply to the Index yourself.

Article reproduced by kind permission - Alison Green

To learn more about the effects the dangerous dogs act has had and continues to have ... visit the sites below

http://www.ddawatch.co.uk/ - Supporting fair and effective dog laws

http://www.facebook.com/pages/DDA-Watch/366883744658 - follow DDA Watch on Face Book

http://www.petparliament.com/ - air your views, cast your votes and contribute toward a better future for pets and their owners.

http://www.cfidos.co.uk/ - the Coalition for Improved Dog Ownership Standards