Post by southsidestaffords on Apr 22, 2010 21:48:12 GMT
Warning that repeal of DDA 1997 not in interests of animal welfare
22 Apr 2010 08:02
THE FORMER chairman of the Dangerous Dogs Reform Group has warned that repealing the current legislation might not be in the interests of animal welfare.
The Government is currently holding a public consultation on what action should be taken with regard to dangerous dogs, and has proposed various options including repealing the Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act 1997.
The problem with this course of action is that the 1991 Act made it mandatory that dogs of banned breeds be put to sleep, whereas the amendment to the Act in 1997 gave courts the option of taking other action, such as, if the dog was no danger to the public, adding its name to the index of exempted animals.
Prohibited dogs
Vet Paul DeVile, who was chairman of the Reform Group and is vice-president of Dogs Trust, told DOG WORLD that repealing the 1997 Act without repealing the 1991 version would reinstate compulsory destruction and prevent any more prohibited dogs being registered on the index.
“This was the whole purpose of the amendment, which was drawn up in the interests of animal welfare,” he said.
Mr DeVile’s Reform Group drew up alternative legislation – the Dog Control Bill – which repealed both Acts. It said that if a dog owner was charged under section 1 the court could allow the owner to register their dog, providing it was satisfied that the dog did not constitute a general danger and, if the dog was born before November 1991, that the owner had a good reason for not having registered it before this date.
In cases where a destruction order was placed on a dog before the amendments were introduced the destruction order would no longer have effect. The case should be returned to court for the magistrate to consider whether or not to exercise discretion. However, the emphasis would remain on destruction.
The Bill also said that if a dog owner was charged under section 3, the court could exercise discretion as long as it was satisfied that the dog did not constitute a general danger to the public.
Writing recently in the Veterinary Record, Mr DeVile said that the Dangerous Dogs Reform Group met in the House of Commons and included several members of both Houses of Parliament, representatives of animal welfare groups, the KC, the Metropolitan Police and the British Veterinary Association.
“The group was formed to combat the iniquities of the 1991 dangerous Dogs Act, passed as a knee-jerk reaction by Parliament and drawn up by the Home Secretary at the time, Kenneth Baker,” he wrote.
“In particular, the group targeted the mandatory destruction of dogs seized by the police whose owners were prosecuted for owning, after November 1991, one of the proscribed breeds, including ‘the type known as the pit bull terrier’ with all the problems of breed identification that the clause engendered.
“Thanks to the good offices of MP Roger Gale, the Amendment Bill was accepted by Parliament on the very day the House of Commons was dissolved before the 1997 General Election. I see now that DEFRA is proposing among other things to repeal the 1997 Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act. I would remind (DEFRA) that the Amendment Act was driven entirely in the interests of animal welfare, and to repeal the Amendment Act without repealing the 1991 Act is not within the interests of animal welfare, which DEFRA is alleged to protect.
“I quite accept that the increase in dogs obtained and trained for criminal purposes is a worrying trend that needs to be addressed, but the proposed repeal of the Amendment Act is not the way to go about it.”
Needlessly destroyed
Dog law expert Trevor Cooper agreed.
“If the Government repeals the 1997 Amendment without repealing section 1 we would be going back in time from 1991 to 1997 when so many dogs were needlessly destroyed,” he said. “Although that is one possible option from this consultation exercise, I hope that once DEFRA considers the full facts it will be apparent that this would not be a sensible way forward.
“The 1997 Amendment allows the courts to let a prohibited type of dog live provided it isn’t a danger to public safety. To destroy a dog even though a court has found it is not a danger to public safety would be perverse.”
The Government’s public consultation document on dangerous dogs suggests various options:
• An extension of criminal law (ie section 3 of the 1991 Act) to all places including private property. This would mean that dogs could be accused of being dangerously out of control in their own homes;
• Additions or amendments to (including possible repeal of) section 1 – concerning the breed of dog – of the 1991 Act;
• Repeal of the 1997 Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act to prevent any more
dogs being added to the index of exempted dogs.
Other options for consideration are:
• The introduction of dog control notices;
• Requirement that all dogs are covered by third-party insurance, and that all dogs and puppies are microchipped;
• More effective enforcement of the existing law, including a consolidation of existing statutes into one new updated Act.
It is important that people give their views before June 1. It is a fairly simple process through DEFRA’s website at http://www.defra.gov.uk; click on ‘wildlife and pets’ and then on ‘dangerous dogs’.
22 Apr 2010 08:02
THE FORMER chairman of the Dangerous Dogs Reform Group has warned that repealing the current legislation might not be in the interests of animal welfare.
The Government is currently holding a public consultation on what action should be taken with regard to dangerous dogs, and has proposed various options including repealing the Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act 1997.
The problem with this course of action is that the 1991 Act made it mandatory that dogs of banned breeds be put to sleep, whereas the amendment to the Act in 1997 gave courts the option of taking other action, such as, if the dog was no danger to the public, adding its name to the index of exempted animals.
Prohibited dogs
Vet Paul DeVile, who was chairman of the Reform Group and is vice-president of Dogs Trust, told DOG WORLD that repealing the 1997 Act without repealing the 1991 version would reinstate compulsory destruction and prevent any more prohibited dogs being registered on the index.
“This was the whole purpose of the amendment, which was drawn up in the interests of animal welfare,” he said.
Mr DeVile’s Reform Group drew up alternative legislation – the Dog Control Bill – which repealed both Acts. It said that if a dog owner was charged under section 1 the court could allow the owner to register their dog, providing it was satisfied that the dog did not constitute a general danger and, if the dog was born before November 1991, that the owner had a good reason for not having registered it before this date.
In cases where a destruction order was placed on a dog before the amendments were introduced the destruction order would no longer have effect. The case should be returned to court for the magistrate to consider whether or not to exercise discretion. However, the emphasis would remain on destruction.
The Bill also said that if a dog owner was charged under section 3, the court could exercise discretion as long as it was satisfied that the dog did not constitute a general danger to the public.
Writing recently in the Veterinary Record, Mr DeVile said that the Dangerous Dogs Reform Group met in the House of Commons and included several members of both Houses of Parliament, representatives of animal welfare groups, the KC, the Metropolitan Police and the British Veterinary Association.
“The group was formed to combat the iniquities of the 1991 dangerous Dogs Act, passed as a knee-jerk reaction by Parliament and drawn up by the Home Secretary at the time, Kenneth Baker,” he wrote.
“In particular, the group targeted the mandatory destruction of dogs seized by the police whose owners were prosecuted for owning, after November 1991, one of the proscribed breeds, including ‘the type known as the pit bull terrier’ with all the problems of breed identification that the clause engendered.
“Thanks to the good offices of MP Roger Gale, the Amendment Bill was accepted by Parliament on the very day the House of Commons was dissolved before the 1997 General Election. I see now that DEFRA is proposing among other things to repeal the 1997 Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act. I would remind (DEFRA) that the Amendment Act was driven entirely in the interests of animal welfare, and to repeal the Amendment Act without repealing the 1991 Act is not within the interests of animal welfare, which DEFRA is alleged to protect.
“I quite accept that the increase in dogs obtained and trained for criminal purposes is a worrying trend that needs to be addressed, but the proposed repeal of the Amendment Act is not the way to go about it.”
Needlessly destroyed
Dog law expert Trevor Cooper agreed.
“If the Government repeals the 1997 Amendment without repealing section 1 we would be going back in time from 1991 to 1997 when so many dogs were needlessly destroyed,” he said. “Although that is one possible option from this consultation exercise, I hope that once DEFRA considers the full facts it will be apparent that this would not be a sensible way forward.
“The 1997 Amendment allows the courts to let a prohibited type of dog live provided it isn’t a danger to public safety. To destroy a dog even though a court has found it is not a danger to public safety would be perverse.”
The Government’s public consultation document on dangerous dogs suggests various options:
• An extension of criminal law (ie section 3 of the 1991 Act) to all places including private property. This would mean that dogs could be accused of being dangerously out of control in their own homes;
• Additions or amendments to (including possible repeal of) section 1 – concerning the breed of dog – of the 1991 Act;
• Repeal of the 1997 Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act to prevent any more
dogs being added to the index of exempted dogs.
Other options for consideration are:
• The introduction of dog control notices;
• Requirement that all dogs are covered by third-party insurance, and that all dogs and puppies are microchipped;
• More effective enforcement of the existing law, including a consolidation of existing statutes into one new updated Act.
It is important that people give their views before June 1. It is a fairly simple process through DEFRA’s website at http://www.defra.gov.uk; click on ‘wildlife and pets’ and then on ‘dangerous dogs’.