NEW sentencing laws for owners of dangerous dogs

EDIT: since steve has removed the title of the facebook group that this post came from AND MY INITIAL REASON FOR POSTING THIS........... I SHALL EDIT IT, AND PUT BACK IN THE QUESTION I ORIGINALLY ASKED!!!

‎""possession of a prohibited dog (These are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro)"" ok so this is very unclear, as with everything BSL, so IF you have a 'type dog' you can face sentence??? OR are they now trying to distinguish an APBT from a type dog???



The new Sentencing Guidelines for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, as amended, came into effect on Monday 20th August 2012 and apply to all cases (offenders 18yrs plus) that are dealt with on or after 20 August 2012 - regardless of when the offence was committed.

The guidelines have been published following a consultation which received more than 500 responses from members of the public, judges and magistrates, the police, animal welfare organisations and many others with expertise or interest in the issue.
The Court Sentencing Guidelines are available to read in full here

The guidelines set sentencing ranges within the current legislation and covers six dangerous dog offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991:
owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place, injuring any person;
owner or person in charge allowing a dog to be in a private place where the dog is not permitted to be, injuring any person;
owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place;
owner or person in charge allowing a dog to be in a private place where the dog not permitted to be which makes a person fear injury;
possession of a prohibited dog (These are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro); and breeding, selling, exchanging or advertising a prohibited dog.
Sentencing Guidelines on pdf - available here

Please note the guidelines state you cannot transfer ownership of a banned breed, this is not to be confused with adding or changing a "Keeper" which has been deemed legal via the High Court in London.

Here is a summary from Trevor Cooper of Cooper & Co Solicitors:

Sentencing Guidelines for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

For the first time, Courts have been provided with sentencing guidelines for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.These come into effect from 20th August 2012 and mark an increase in sentencing levels from current practice.
According to a press release issued by the Sentencing Council:-
“The new guideline will mean more offenders will face jail sentences, more will get community orders and fewer will receive discharges”

In summary, it states:-

Section 3 DDA

For cases under Section 3 where the dog has injured a person (ie. aggravated offences), the following are to be regarded as the starting point:-

Category 1 ie. where there is greater harm and higher culpability
The starting point is 26 weeks prison

Category 2 ie. where there is greater harm and lower culpability, or lesser harm and higher culpability
The starting point is a medium level community order (eg 80-150 hours of unpaid work)

Category 3 ie. lesser harm and lesser culpability
The starting point is a Band B fine (eg 100% of relevant weekly income)

Courts have to take into account various factors to determine which category the particular offence falls within, and then from this starting point the sentence could be greater or lesser than this having regard to aggravating and mitigating factors.
The Court must take into account any potential reduction for a guilty plea.

Ancillary Orders
Courts are reminded that they must consider compensation in all cases where personal injury, loss or damage has resulted from the offence and they must give reasons if they decide not to award compensation.
As to disqualification, the test is whether the owner is a fit and proper person to have custody of a dog.
As to the dog, the Court is reminded that they shall make a destruction order unless satisfied that it would not constitute a danger to public safety and should take into account:-
· the incident
· past behaviour of the dog
· the owner’s character

The alternative to destruction is a Contingent Destruction Order to which the Court may impose conditions.
The guidelines for non aggravated offences provide for less severe penalties and the starting points are:-
Category 1 : Medium level community order (eg 80-150 hours of unpaid work)
Category 2 : Band B fine (eg 100% of relevant weekly income)
Category 3 : Band A fine (eg 50% of relevant weekly income)

The guidance for Ancillary Orders is the same EXCEPT when it discusses destruction as there is no presumption in favour of destruction in a non aggravated case.

Section 1 DDA

The guidelines provide for the following starting points:-
Category 1 : Medium level community order (eg. 80-150 hours of unpaid work)
Category 2 : Band C fine (eg 150% of relevant weekly income)
Category 3 : Band A fine (eg 50% of relevant weekly income)

The guidance on ancillary orders is similar to those for aggravated Section 3 cases EXCEPT that if the Court decides not to order destruction the alternative is to allow the dog to be exempted from the prohibition. Courts are reminded that they must not transfer ownership of the dog to another.

you cant advertise facebook pages on here

what exactly is the point here are you quoting us the rules or asking a question ??

BOTH im posting the NEW sentencing laws. and asking a question about them, steve removed a large chunk of my original text, in which i mentioned where i seen the post AND my question about it.
All that was left by steve was a list of new sentencing laws, hence why i quoted
""possession of a prohibited dog (These are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro)"" ok so this is very unclear, as with everything BSL, so IF you have a 'type dog' you can face sentence??? OR are they now trying to distinguish an APBT from a type dog???

Floyd1138 wrote:BOTH im posting the NEW sentencing laws. and asking a question about them, steve removed a large chunk of my original text, in which i mentioned where i seen the post AND my question about it.
All that was left by steve was a list of new sentencing laws, hence why i quoted
""possession of a prohibited dog (These are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro)"" ok so this is very unclear, as with everything BSL, so IF you have a 'type dog' you can face sentence??? OR are they now trying to distinguish an APBT from a type dog???

Steve edited your post because it had reference to facebook and that is not allowed on this forum , sorry .

I don't see anywhere in this post trying to distinguish between type and breed but I think it's fairly obvious (or at least to my small mind that any dog who is actually of breed xcf is going to fit into type xcf

i know the reason why he edited it, he mentioned it above you, and i mentioned in the edit before your reply. How ever text was removed which had nothing to do with anything FB. I cant explain it in simpler terms, sorry.

I'm glad its fairly obvious to you, but the 492 replies in the past 2 hours on a watchgroup forum regarding DDA this topic from hundreds of people who are confused and panicing and dont understand if they can be sentenced for having a dog deemed a pit type dog. And i'm sure people here will be curious to see the new sentencing laws and have their opinions on them.

i dont why anybody is confused they just getting tougher on bad owners far to many people in the uk get confused to easy these days.... maybe this why we only county in the G8 that still in recession.

Sorry I'm very tired and didnt read the post properly (like all law bulsh1t there is a lot of text in there) , this mentions nothing about type only the fact that the mentioned dogs (which from their clear wording is dog and not dog type) that is how it is to be interpreted.

Where in all this tect does it mention type because I can't see it.

Steve wrote:i dont why anybody is confused they just getting tougher on bad owners far to many people in the uk get confused to easy these days.... maybe this why we only county in the G8 that still in recession.

I agree Steve , people spend too much time on it now, this is for all dogs with the exception of this 1 sentence referring to several breeds NOT types, and I can't be bothered chewing the fat over it all night , that's why facebook was invented , we have far more important things to do like ............

only thing that as change really is if you own a ban breed you could now face 6 months in side instead of a fine, if your dog bites anyone you can face 18 months inside instead of 6 months.

the breed that was banned are still banned a long with crossbreeds that have similar looks of ban breeds

Thanks steve,

So my neighbour in her 60's who has a staff x lab owner NOW can be fined or receive community service (or jail if her dog bites) for owning her 12 year old friendly dog. Even though its not on the banned list It's size and shape will determine the owners sentence or fine.

This highlights the absurd law.

it's always be like this.... :-< this isn't new

BSL is a stupid law, but as I have said so many times before, Moo would fall into a type category and there is not a chance she would be taken away!

The sentencing law came into effect on Monday 20th August 2012

Janey, i agree with you, its stupid how you can face a fine just for owning moo

OMG floyd where have you been for the last 10 plus years you could of face a £5000 fine or be send down for 4 months if you owned a pitbull or type before these changes..

Yes i am well aware of that hence why 'NEW' is in capitals in title of the post. Probably a few member on here whos dog are deemed type, some may have non dog friendly ones, the guy up street from me has 2 who lunge at everything.

quote on the article says:

"The new guideline will mean more offenders will face jail sentences, more will get community orders and fewer will receive discharges”

Moo would be classed as a type, but there is no way she would be taken away.

Okay can I add something, that hubby told me. It also states that if any type of dog barked at a child, person and that child, person felt threated, under those new laws you face prison/fine and dog can be taken off you to be put down? Is that true?

No. If the dog is under control and no threat to any person or animal then there won't be a problem. You may get a knock at the door if your dog is barking 24/7 but that will be more to annoying people than to be scaring them. If they have a phobia of dogs thats their problem.

BlueStaffBlue wrote:No. If the dog is under control and no threat to any person or animal then there won't be a problem. You may get a knock at the door if your dog is barking 24/7 but that will be more to annoying people than to be scaring them. If they have a phobia of dogs thats their problem.

So why did he hear that on the radio then . Pixee does not trust strangers, she thinks when they try to pat her, they going to hurt her, and will bark at them in warning as to say, hey I dont know you, dont come near me. Although she is so much better on walks, as I know the certain people she will do it to, I make sure she is on the lead. There are a few times, and they are much better now, that she may just do a low growl ever on lead, cos they looking at her and she does feel threated. If I ever find out who had her before, I will report them to the police for mistreating her so badly!

Staffy lover wrote:Okay can I add something, that hubby told me. It also states that if any type of dog barked at a child, person and that child, person felt threated, under those new laws you face prison/fine and dog can be taken off you to be put down? Is that true?

that not new.. when your out you should have your dog under control that always been in the dogs laws

Reasons Pixee barked is as I explained when people try to pat her, otherwise my dog is under control, what am I suppose to do otherwise? I have never for one gone up to pat any dog without asking the owners if they friendly. Other reason is certain people, the barking has stopped now without them going to pat her, just a low growl now and then which is also getting better, and rest assured, she is always on the lead in those situations. She is always told no, thats naughty. I have had dogs bark at me for no reason, and I dont feel threated as the owners have done something straight away, e.g. put them back on lead. But because I have a staffie, I have my concerns cos we all know very well people just dont understand them. And theres no way anyone is using that as an excuse, no damn way, Pixee is the biggest loving and softie with us all, she is my girl, and loves getting to know all our friends.

you shouldn't let people near her if she doesn't like other people.

Blue sometimes will cower if people go to stroke him sometimes (Mainly big men). But I just tell them not to put their hand out in the first place. Stroking a dog when you meet it is the wrong way to meet a dog anyway.
But you CAN NOT get done for your dog barking at someone if your dog is under control.
The law is to protect the safety of others not to protect them from hearing sound waves

Steve wrote:you shouldn't let people near her if she doesn't like other people.

I dont, although the canals are not wide shall we say, its only certain people, and I make her sit and wait if theres a group of them on lead. Praise her if she stays quiet and calm. The other people, she has no problems with and will just walk on when I tell her to. Its to do with her history how she has been mistreated. Ever cyclers on the canals she has no problems with, and will sit on one side nice and calm off lead, till I say ok play on. We always get a thank you. But you get idlots that dont understand not every owner wants their dog patted or does the dog want to be patted.

BlueStaffBlue wrote:Blue sometimes will cower if people go to stroke him sometimes (Mainly big men). But I just tell them not to put their hand out in the first place. Stroking a dog when you meet it is the wrong way to meet a dog anyway.
But you CAN NOT get done for your dog barking at someone if your dog is under control.
The law is to protect the safety of others not to protect them from hearing sound waves

Thank you for this. When Pixee has barked to warn back off, and me saying no she is nervious/wary of strangers, she has always been on lead. Why does the b......... radio tell you those things when its not true! thats what has had me concerned.

I think people may have got it wrong here, because dogs are deemed property there are many ways a dog of any type or breed can be taken away.
For instance if a person feels threatened by a dog not bitten just feels threatened, they could be obstinate enough to report the dog and it could be taken away and ultimately killed.
This has happened before and will continue to happen while the laws are so vague.

Matt Vandart wrote:I think people may have got it wrong here, because dogs are deemed property there are many ways a dog of any type or breed can be taken away.
For instance if a person feels threatened by a dog not bitten just feels threatened, they could be obstinate enough to report the dog and it could be taken away and ultimately killed.
This has happened before and will continue to happen while the laws are so vague.

That is what I am concernered about, cos many people do that out of spite not cause they felt threatened, they just use that as a excuse, just to get one over you, never mind that the poor dog has done nothing. And where does your dog stand, when in fact, the person sometimes teases the dog on purpose, the dog in defend, barks back, does that mean the dog not the person in fact gets put down

This could just go on and on, stupid laws!

Matt Vandart wrote:I think people may have got it wrong here, because dogs are deemed property there are many ways a dog of any type or breed can be taken away.
For instance if a person feels threatened by a dog not bitten just feels threatened, they could be obstinate enough to report the dog and it could be taken away and ultimately killed.
This has happened before and will continue to happen while the laws are so vague.

Can you give me a case of 1 dog being taken away for barking. What you saying that people can report a dog barking at them so the authorites have gone.....thats not good we should remove the dog? I can't see it, it would have to be some extreme case that involves more than a bark. I think staffyLover is concerned if they are out walking their dog and it barks at someone who tries to approach them etc....their dog will NOT be removed because of this. Someone reports that they were walking down the street and when they approached a dog it started barking at me. The authorites will just say....why were you approaching it?

Thank you Mike, this has put my mind at rest.

dog wardens/police have been told to use common sense but if your dog doesn't like people you not let people near them just in case.

So if you had a pitbull or one of those dogs but it was the most well behaved dog in the world you could have it taken away and face a punishment?

yes because they are banned in the uk for the last nearly 20 years

x0gawjus0x wrote:So if you had a pitbull or one of those dogs but it was the most well behaved dog in the world you could have it taken away and face a punishment?

Unfortantly yes any dog that police see and think it looks like a "pit bull type" dog can by law be seized by the police, american pitbull terriers are not a recognised breed in this country so they have a certain list of measurments that if your dog meets 60% or more is classed as a "pit bull type" dog. Your dog dosnt have too do anything wrong you could literally be walking down the street and a police man thinks your dog is type and it be taken away. Main thing is not too sign any papers. Its a scary thought its such a messed up law.

Michelle

we never had the american pitbull terrier in the uk we had a few different line of the pitbull terrier.. pitbull terrier and pitbull terrier type (will be american pitbull terrier, american staffordshire terrier and any other crossbreed that have similar looks) are banned in the uk

This is not a change in the law, it is a change in sentancing guidlines. what would have got you into trouble before will still do so except you will face a stiffer penalty. is that really a bad thing? we all get hacked off when we read about stories that give staffies a bad name knowing full well its the owners fault, now there actually doing something about it, albeit small.
The DDA has not changed one bit and what alot of people forget is that it covers ALL DOGS, people really should read past section one of the act.
As much as I dont like parts of the act and especially section one ( i get tense everytime were out with riley and a police car goes past) there are actually some good points in the act that safeguard the public from bad owners and there dogs.

good post nathan