New Dog Laws

This is supposed to make things clearer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24020428

Much clearer. This quote shows that even Ministers have some level of brain power....

"Ministers say dogs cannot be expected to "ascertain the intentions" of those entering a property before reacting."

Seems they are waking up at last.

Makes a change. 

Bit of sense it seems  

Perhaps some common sense at last

Well that's a breath of fresh air and commonsense.

They had to do it because they are amending the DDA to cover private property where a dog has a right to be. previously it only applied to public or private places where a dog didn't have a right to be. Now if someone jumps into your garden you can be prosecuted if your dog attacks even though it is trespass.
in the parliamentary debate there was a sticking point about trespass with intent to cause damage or theft verses "innocent" trespass where a child was retrieving a ball. Obviously a dog cannot make that distinction so they decided to narrow the protection down to only applying when someone has actually broken in or are in the process of breaking in to your house.
in essence all they have done is add to the places where a dog attack takes place and you can be prosecuted.
I'm not 100% against it because hopefully it offers some safeguard to postal workers, delivery drivers etc. my only gripe is that they didn't add enclosed garden space with the only access being via the house to the exempted areas. as to access that people would have to effectively break into it.

We keep our gates locked with a chain and got a board reading :tresspassers will be eaten plus another board with a german shepherd on it saying danger in four of our 11 languages. Tim bit a man that just walked onto our property and chased him up on our carport. He had a knife and when they arrested him he said he wanted to ask directions.  

What covered our butt from them prosecuting is that we had the gates locked and the boards up.

Nathan wrote:
I'm not 100% against it because hopefully it offers some safeguard to postal workers, delivery drivers etc. my only gripe is that they didn't add enclosed garden space with the only access being via the house to the exempted areas. as to access that people would have to effectively break into it.

I don't quite get you, Nathan.

Do mean children etc coming in to the garden through the house? I don't see how that could possibly happen unless the children actually break into the house, in which case it's criminal trespass anyway (even if they are quite young).

However, it would be up to you to make sure your house is secure.

Caryll wrote:

Nathan wrote:
I'm not 100% against it because hopefully it offers some safeguard to postal workers, delivery drivers etc. my only gripe is that they didn't add enclosed garden space with the only access being via the house to the exempted areas. as to access that people would have to effectively break into it.

I don't quite get you, Nathan.

Do mean children etc coming in to the garden through the house? I don't see how that could possibly happen unless the children actually break into the house, in which case it's criminal trespass anyway (even if they are quite young).

However, it would be up to you to make sure your house is secure.

sorry if i wasn't clear. what i meant was, say you have a back yard which is fenced off with no gates and the only access being via a doorway in the house. it would be impossible to enter without breaking in by climbing a fence. now say pooch is sleeping at bottom of garden and someone vaults the fence and scares the bejeesus out of it. if it attacks you will get prosecuted.

Nathan wrote:
sorry if i wasn't clear. what i meant was, say you have a back yard which is fenced off with no gates and the only access being via a doorway in the house. it would be impossible to enter without breaking in by climbing a fence. now say pooch is sleeping at bottom of garden and someone vaults the fence and scares the bejeesus out of it. if it attacks you will get prosecuted.

The law is still quite clear that if a child or a neighbour climbs the fence to legitimately retrieve something (a ball, plant clippings etc) then must be able to do so without fear of getting bitten. That's one reason a dog should never be left unsupervised in a garden.

I agree to an extent but when i was a kid i used to knock on the door and ask if i could fetch something.  also being a neighbor I'm sure i would know if next door had dogs, again i would ask if i could enter the property to retrieve the clippings.   it may not be a dog that is dangerous, I may have a small glass plant nursery directly under that fence.
And I don't think anyone has any legitimate right just to enter a fenced off part of your property, its still forced entry trespass  and the law acknowledges this. dog or no dog they should not be there.

say someone is casing my my house and hiding in the bushes at the bottom of my garden because they have seen me come to the back door. I check the coast is clear but because they are hiding i cant see them. i let the dogs out who smell track and attack the intruder in the bushes. I'm in trouble... now do i have to go out into the garden and inspect every nook and cranny before letting the dogs out?

Edit to point out my two would more than likely just want to play in above scenario

I think you're missing the point, Nathan. If someone's hiding in your garden, then that's malicious intent & the dog (or you) won't be to blame....

The change would extend the scope of the law to enable a prosecution to be brought against anyone whose dog injures someone, or acts aggressively, in a private place where they are permitted to be, such as the owner's home.

But dog owners will not be able to be prosecuted if the victim was trespassing in their home.

In a response to MPs on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee - which has made a number of recommendations to ministers - the government rejected the idea of a similar exemption in relation to attacks on people trespassing in gardens or outhouses.

"A child retrieving a ball from a garden, or a neighbour retrieving garden cuttings, should be protected from dog attacks," officials said.

"Such a distinction reflects the higher likelihood of a trespasser inside or entering a dwelling having malign intent," the response added.

But it confirmed, under the government's plans, no offence would be committed if a dog was "dangerously out of control in relation to a trespasser who is in, or in the process of entering a dwelling, regardless of the intention of the trespasser".

you have to be in the dwelling and in the process means dog inside and intruder half through the window.
"the government rejected the idea of a similar exemption in relation to attacks on people trespassing in gardens or outhouses"
I read the "in the process of entering" as someone stood trying to pry the windows open at first. but its wrong, that is still classed as attempt. the only place exempted is within the house itself.

They refused to exempt gardens because there is no way for a dog to understand what does and does not constitute trespass with intent. to expect a dog to casually sit by and wait in the garden until someone is half through the window and beyond doubt would be pushing it a little.

That's why the following statement is important...

"Ministers say dogs cannot be expected to "ascertain the intentions" of those entering a property before reacting."

However, dogs should always be supervised when in the garden!

Caryll wrote:

However, dogs should always be supervised when in the garden!

totally agree, and I'm watching my two like a hawk at the moment with there Houdini antics. another plus is that being out there with them I've managed to save a black currant bush, rose bush and my herb bed from total destruction.