We would like to dispel a myth. A dog is not allowed to have one bite so the very first time that your dog acts dangerously could end up in a Court.

This is the area of the law relating to dogs where Cooper & Co has particular expertise and we are regarded as a leading firm of Solicitors in England & Wales for such cases. If your dog has been accused of behaving dangerously, you may wish to telephone us for advice on 0906 515 1108.

PHONE ADVICE

If you have a dog-related legal problem anywhere in England or Wales, Solicitor Trevor Cooper would be pleased to assist.

Calls cost £1.50 per minute from a BT landine
Lines are open: Monday to Thursday : 7:30pm to 9.00pm

Calls may be recorded for quality assurance purposes. Lines are closed on Bank Holidays and at other times when Mr Cooper is unavailable.

Please note that under the terms of our authorisation by PhonepayPlus (the new name for ICSTIS), each call may last no longer than 20 minutes.

Cooper & Co Solicitors, The Byre, Brook Street, Ash, nr Canterbury, Kent, CT3 2NP. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We do not provide advice by correspondence.


It is likely that you will face proceedings under either Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 and the main elements are:

Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
This part of the Dangerous Dogs Act applies to every single dog in England & Wales, no matter whether it is a pure bred dog, cross or a mongrel and regardless of its size.

This is a criminal offence which can be brought against the owner of a dog (and if different the person in charge of a dog) if a dog is:

1. dangerously out of control
   
2. in a public place
   

'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control.

'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'.

The Police have the discretionary power to seize a dog (although they may need a warrant) but there is no provision for 'bail' for the dog pending a conclusion at Court.

If injury is caused to a person, then there is a presumption in favour of destruction of the dog unless the owner can prove that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. If the Court can be persuaded not to impose destruction, then the alternative is a Contingent Destruction Order ie. a requirement that unless the dog is kept under proper control then it shall be destroyed. The Court has the power to impose conditions to such an order.

For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. However, this is very rare and the more likely outcome is financial ie. a fine, compensation and costs.

There is a separate charge (in Section 3(3)) which can be brought against an owner (or person in charge) if the incident occurs in a non-public place, where the dog is not permitted to be.

Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

1. If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place -
   
   
   1. the owner; and
      
   2. if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
      
   is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
   
2. In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
   
3. If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there -
   
   
   1. it injures any person; or
      
   2. there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,
      
   he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
   
4. A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under either of those subsections is liable -
   
   
   1. on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
      
   2. on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
      
   
   
5. It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control) -
   
   
   1. may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and
      
   2. may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise.
      
   
   
6. If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an order requiring it to be neutered.
   
7. The reference in section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 (penalties) to failing to comply with an order under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 to keep a dog under proper control shall include a reference to failing to comply with any other order made under that section; but no order shall be made under that section by virtue of subsection (6) above where the matters complained of arose before the coming into force of that subsection.
   

This extract from the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.



Section 2 Dogs Act 1871
This is a civil complaint, although as it is heard in a Magistrates' Court, it is often (wrongly) said to be criminal. It occurs if a dog is not kept under proper control and is dangerous. Generally is dog is regarded as not being under proper control if it is neither on a lead nor muzzled.



Unlike Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991:

• it applies regardless of where the incident takes place
  
• proceedings can only be brought against the owner
  
• a dog can show itself to be dangerous in its general behaviour, not just its behaviour towards a person
  
• a single incident is generally insufficient to prove that a dog is dangerous, unless the Court believes that the single incident is exceptional
  
• there is no presumption in favour of destruction of the dog
  
• the Police have no power to seize a dog pending proceedings
  
• the Court has no power to fine or order compensation
  

The Court has unfettered discretion on what to do to the dog. They may order destruction of the dog but such orders are very rare. The alternative is a Control Order (with or without conditions) and the owner will probably have to pay costs.

Section 2 Dogs Act 1871


"Any court of summary jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, and if it appears to the court having cognizance of such complaint that such dog is dangerous, the court may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed."


This extract from the Dogs Act 1871 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.

I think you can make any dog


Trade in 'Irish' pit bulls flouts dog law
By Daniel Foggo and Adam Lusher
(Filed: 02/06/2002)
British dog breeders are making a mockery of the law banning American pit bull terriers by selling an almost identical breed that is equally vicious and is being widely used in illegal dog fights.
The Telegraph has discovered that the new dogs, whose extreme aggression and tenacity mirror those of the feared American breed, are being sold under the "codename" of "Irish" Staffordshire bull terriers.
The RSPCA says that the "Irish" variety - which it does not recognise as a breed - is helping to fuel the return of dog fighting to levels last seen in the 1980s before the Dangerous Dogs Act was enforced.
Mike Butcher, the chief inspector for the RSPCA special operations unit set up to prosecute dog fighting rings, said that between 1980 and 1991 he and his colleagues carried out 13 raids and jailed almost 100 people.
There was a lull in the number of dog fights during the 1990s, but in the past 18 months alone the unit has pursued seven court cases.
The widespread appearance of the new breed has also heightened fears of a fresh wave of dog attacks on people. Two weeks ago five-year-old Leah Preston had most of the muscles in her legs and buttocks ripped away by two dogs described as "bull terrier crosses" while playing outside her home in Wolverhampton.
Last week two other children were savaged. One of them, seven-year-old Abigail Williams from Newcastle, needed surgery after being attacked by what the police described as a "cross-bred Staffordshire bull terrier that was like a pit bull".
Under the Dangerous Dogs Act, which was enacted in 1991 following a spate of savage attacks on humans, owners of American pit bulls are banned from breeding their dogs or bringing further specimens into the country. Existing dogs had to be neutered, registered with tattoos and microchips and kept muzzled in public.
Animals affected by the Act must belong to one of four breeds: the American pit bull terrier, the Japanese tosa, the Argentinian dogo and the Brazilian fila. While there were about 10,000 American pit bulls in Britain by 1991, there was only one tosa and none of the other two breeds.
"The legislation is very clear that a dog must be an American pit bull terrier to come under the confines of the Act," said Mr Butcher.
"What happens, however, is that people who fight dogs are using animals they call an Irish Staffordshire bull terrier but which are in fact like an American pit bull terrier. They can be prosecuted for this if a vet states in court that the dog is actually the equivalent of an American pit bull."
Inquiries carried out by this newspaper have found that the law is being circumvented by breeders of the "Irish" variation of the Staffordshire bull terrier. These dogs are significantly larger than ordinary Staffordshires and almost indistinguishable from American pit bulls.
Both the RSPCA and the Kennel Club are worried about the "Irish" variety's sudden proliferation. Mr Butcher said: "There is no such breed as an Irish Staffordshire bull terrier. This is a codename for an American pit bull."
Eleven days ago, Mr Butcher helped to secure the conviction of a man from Redruth in Cornwall for participating in dog fighting. David Reeves, 38, an unemployed guitar teacher, who had made videos of dogs savaging each other, claimed in court that his dog, Red, was an Irish Staffordshire bull terrier, but Alison Robson, a vet specialising in dangerous dogs, gave evidence that the animal was substantially a pit bull type.
The American pit bull was created from selective breeding of ancestors of British Staffordshire bull terriers, which were exported to the United States in the 19th century. Staffordshires are about 15in high at the shoulder, while American pit bulls can be 18in - and taller - at the shoulder.
The pit bull was bred to be far more muscular and aggressive than the Staffordshire. The RSPCA and the Kennel Club say that an Irish Staffordshire bull terrier is a very leggy Staffordshire bull terrier that has been created by selective breeding designed to give it characteristics similar to those of the banned US pit bull.
Phil Buckley, a spokesman for the Kennel Club, said: "Families may think they are buying a pure-bred Stafford.
"We have had a lot of calls from those who have bought these dogs at six weeks old, and at three months they are phoning us up saying, 'I didn't know what I was buying but the breeder said it would be a slightly large Staffordshire bull terrier'. Instead they get a bulky animal that doesn't resemble a Stafford in temperament or type."
Puppies from dogs described as "Irish" or "big-boned" Staffordshire bull terriers are advertised for sale in a variety of publications. The Telegraph responded to one advert in Exchange & Mart which offered "Old type (Irish) puppies, excellent pedigree, very well bred Psycho line, £400."
The seller, who gave his name as Ian and lives in Harrogate, North Yorkshire, said that the puppies' parents stood up to 20in at the shoulder - five inches higher than a normal Staffordshire terrier and tall even for an American pit bull.
"If you want a guard dog then this is perfect for you," he said.
He added that the word "Psycho" referred to a notorious pit bull type of fighting dog of the 1980s from which his litter was descended. Psycho defeated three other dogs in fights lasting for up to two hours before meeting its match in a dog called Stormer. More than £6,000 of bets were placed on the fight.
Another advertisement offered Staffordshire terrier pups with "Champion Rebel and Irish bloodline" for £450. Chris Grace, a taxi driver from Plumstead in south London who placed it, told a Telegraph reporter posing as a potential buyer: "I have been round the pit bulls and the Staffords for 20-odd years now, and all of a sudden, now that no one can get pit bulls, everyone wants Irish Staffords.
My brother's dog is as good as gold with the kids, but anyone comes anywhere near them or shouts at them or anything - the dog's straight out there. And when he comes in late at night the dog's at the door, doing his nut."
Mr Grace tells potential buyers that his dogs are "Kennel Club" registered Staffordshire bull terriers and shows certificates purporting to show their pedigree. On closer inspection, however, these prove to be issued by the "Intercontinental Kennel Club", a fringe organisation run by Ed Reid, the man credited with introducing the pit bull into Britain during the 1970s.
Mr Grace also describes his dogs as Staffordshire bull terriers "with Irish in them".
When confronted by The Telegraph, he denied that Irish Staffordshire bull terrier was code for pit bull.
He said: "Irish Staffordshire bull terriers have been around for years. It's just old breeding. When you saw my dogs, did you get bitten? No. They were nice and friendly."
The Kennel Club is pressing the Advertising Standards Agency to ban the running of advertisements for such dogs. Mr Buckley said: "Exchange & Mart are looking at not running ads for Irish Staffordshire terriers and breeds like that."
Beverley Cuddy, the editor of Dogs Today, said that her magazine would not carry such advertisements.
"There is no recognised Irish Staffordshire bull terrier breed," she said. "It is complete fiction."
?

You can make any dog Vicious but to sell dogs saying there staffordshire bull terriers that the problem.
I think we should be like spain ,its easyer to get a gun than to buy a bull breed

kernewekglas wrote:You can make any dog Vicious but to sell dogs saying there staffordshire bull terriers that the problem.
I think we should be like spain ,its easyer to get a gun than to buy a bull breed

This is what annoys me, dodgey breeders mixing a 15" staffie with a 19" pit and getting a 17/18" mix breed named an "Irish staffie" with KC papers ^_^.

yes i total agree

StaffyBTUK wrote:We would like to dispel a myth. A dog is not allowed to have one bite so the very first time that your dog acts dangerously could end up in a Court.

This is the area of the law relating to dogs where Cooper & Co has particular expertise and we are regarded as a leading firm of Solicitors in England & Wales for such cases. If your dog has been accused of behaving dangerously, you may wish to telephone us for advice on 0906 515 1108.

PHONE ADVICE

If you have a dog-related legal problem anywhere in England or Wales, Solicitor Trevor Cooper would be pleased to assist.

Calls cost £1.50 per minute from a BT landine
Lines are open: Monday to Thursday : 7:30pm to 9.00pm

Calls may be recorded for quality assurance purposes. Lines are closed on Bank Holidays and at other times when Mr Cooper is unavailable.

Please note that under the terms of our authorisation by PhonepayPlus (the new name for ICSTIS), each call may last no longer than 20 minutes.

Cooper & Co Solicitors, The Byre, Brook Street, Ash, nr Canterbury, Kent, CT3 2NP. Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We do not provide advice by correspondence.


It is likely that you will face proceedings under either Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 or Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 and the main elements are:

Section 3(1) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
This part of the Dangerous Dogs Act applies to every single dog in England & Wales, no matter whether it is a pure bred dog, cross or a mongrel and regardless of its size.

This is a criminal offence which can be brought against the owner of a dog (and if different the person in charge of a dog) if a dog is:

1. dangerously out of control
   
2. in a public place
   

'Dangerously out of control' is defined as being 'on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person'. Generally, if a dog bites someone then it will be presumed to have been dangerously out of control.

'Public place' is defined as including any place 'to which the public have or are permitted to have access'.

The Police have the discretionary power to seize a dog (although they may need a warrant) but there is no provision for 'bail' for the dog pending a conclusion at Court.

If injury is caused to a person, then there is a presumption in favour of destruction of the dog unless the owner can prove that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. If the Court can be persuaded not to impose destruction, then the alternative is a Contingent Destruction Order ie. a requirement that unless the dog is kept under proper control then it shall be destroyed. The Court has the power to impose conditions to such an order.

For the owner and/or person in charge of the dog at the time of the incident the Court has the power to impose a prison sentence as well as a ban on keeping dogs. However, this is very rare and the more likely outcome is financial ie. a fine, compensation and costs.

There is a separate charge (in Section 3(3)) which can be brought against an owner (or person in charge) if the incident occurs in a non-public place, where the dog is not permitted to be.

Section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

1. If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place -
   
   
   1. the owner; and
      
   2. if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
      
   is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
   
2. In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of it.
   
3. If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there -
   
   
   1. it injures any person; or
      
   2. there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so,
      
   he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.
   
4. A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under either of those subsections is liable -
   
   
   1. on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
      
   2. on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
      
   
   
5. It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control) -
   
   
   1. may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and
      
   2. may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise.
      
   
   
6. If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an order requiring it to be neutered.
   
7. The reference in section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 (penalties) to failing to comply with an order under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 to keep a dog under proper control shall include a reference to failing to comply with any other order made under that section; but no order shall be made under that section by virtue of subsection (6) above where the matters complained of arose before the coming into force of that subsection.
   

This extract from the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.



Section 2 Dogs Act 1871
This is a civil complaint, although as it is heard in a Magistrates' Court, it is often (wrongly) said to be criminal. It occurs if a dog is not kept under proper control and is dangerous. Generally is dog is regarded as not being under proper control if it is neither on a lead nor muzzled.



Unlike Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991:

• it applies regardless of where the incident takes place
  
• proceedings can only be brought against the owner
  
• a dog can show itself to be dangerous in its general behaviour, not just its behaviour towards a person
  
• a single incident is generally insufficient to prove that a dog is dangerous, unless the Court believes that the single incident is exceptional
  
• there is no presumption in favour of destruction of the dog
  
• the Police have no power to seize a dog pending proceedings
  
• the Court has no power to fine or order compensation
  

The Court has unfettered discretion on what to do to the dog. They may order destruction of the dog but such orders are very rare. The alternative is a Control Order (with or without conditions) and the owner will probably have to pay costs.

Section 2 Dogs Act 1871


"Any court of summary jurisdiction may take cognizance of a complaint that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control, and if it appears to the court having cognizance of such complaint that such dog is dangerous, the court may make an order in a summary way directing the dog to be kept by the owner under proper control or destroyed."


This extract from the Dogs Act 1871 is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.

for some they dont even have to bite at all and they can end up in court simply because of how they look.

What is the law for a dog who is dog aggressive and always on a lead but will attack if a dog who is off lead runs you to it.

who is at fault and how does the law stand with that.

The dog who is off lead, there owner is at fault.

The police very rarely act on dog on dog attacks anyway, unless a human is at risk at the time or it was deliberatly provoked.

If your dog is on a lead and another one it not then it the dog offlead who is at fault as it isnt properly controlled.