Talk:Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

Add this to the section on Moral panics?

It seems to fit the criteria pretty well.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bisected8 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 16 October 2006 UTC.

What are you talking about? These dogs can kill lions and Britain's cities athemost densely populated areas of the world, not the best mix. Children did die often from these dogs.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 91.153.17.77 (talk • contribs).

As an inhabitant of a city of Britain I confirm the dense population of lions, though realise that this violates WP:OR. Unfortunately, lions are notoriously shy in front of the camera (whence the proliferation of CCTV in British cities), so I cannot provide links to published evidence. 92.0.106.248 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

of course it is a moral panic. all 4 components required are there: children, hysterical parents, tabloids and a bogeyman (in this case dogs but see also: paedophiles, ecstasy, motor cars, swine flu etc...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.48.204.1 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

.....these dogs can kill lions? not quite sure it was ever reported that a Rottweiler ever killed a lion in history, maybe the writer would like to substantiate her/his statement with some sort of reputable reference....also, "childen did die often from these dogs"....please qualify often and substantiate it with reputable references other than the writer own fears and prejudice.Children die OFTEN of diseases, accidents,neglect and cases of abuse overwhelmingly outnumber any dog attack. I suggest the writer visits her/his G.P. for some advice on deep seated anxiety and obsession with media moral panic. Alternatively any good self-help or group therapy on 'back to reality' should suffice. If you ask me what a lot of nonsense, I speak as the owner of a Rottweiler and German Shepherd, with 2 decades of experience at that. SkyAxel 20th Febru

Sources

A quick search of the Guardian website reveals plenty of anti-Dangerous Dogs Act commentary (plus some in favour), and that's just one newspaper. This is a reputable source but how many individual links are needed? Lfh (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Make links to specific claims and sources. be as precise as you can, and try to use a variety of sources. You can find out more by looking at Wikipedia help pages about citations and references, especially WP:V which is relevant to your question. Naturenet | Talk 12:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I'd say we have enough sources for that claim now, actually; I was just struck by how much anti-DDA feeling there is out there! Thanks for the image too - I've renamed it to "American Pit Bull Terrier" because the standardised spelling/capitalisation makes it clearer that this is a specific, defined breed, whereas "pitbull" is notoriously vague. Lfh (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope

What extent of the UK does this law cover. I'm not an expert on law, but I am aware that Northern Ireland and Scotland, for example, may have specific laws regarding animals which differ from law that applies only to England & Wales. Does this law apply to both Northern Ireland and Scotland to the same extent as England & Wales? This needs clarification. --Setanta747 (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Act applies to England, Wales and Scotland [1]; the terms of The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 mirror the Act for NI. Bencherlite^Talk 14:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Burden of Proof

Is it not note worthy that the Dangerous Dogs Act, Section 1 is unique in UK criminal law in so far as there is no presumption of innocence and the burden of proof rests with the defendant to demonstrate that the allegations are false? Johnderondon (talk) 14:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturenet | Talk 11:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Citation for what? The reversal of the burden of proof? It's in the Act (which is already referenced). Sec. 5 (5)..."If in any proceedings it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 or an order under section 2 above applies it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused by such evidence as the court considers sufficient;" Johnderondon (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of full disclosure Johnderondon is a supporter of an anti-breed specific legislation campaign.Johnderondon (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No dispute as to the content of the Act of course, but by asserting its uniqueness in that way you are getting pretty close to original research I would say unless you can provide some reference, hence the template. This isn't the place for that. Although there's no reason not to describe that provision of the Act in the article. And cheers for the disclosure. Your openness increases your credibility. Naturenet | Talk 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see. The claim of uniqueness requires citation and not the reversal of the burden of proof. I don't think I can supply a citation for this that would pass muster. The sources I have all exhibit a strong bias. It's a little like proving a negative. If I changed the word "unique" for the word "unusual" would that resolve matters?Johnderondon (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Being a newbie I'm not too sure of the etiquette here but, in light of the lack of response to my question, I'll leave it another 24 hours and make the change and remove the 'citiation needed' tag. Hope that's acceptable.92.238.32.209 (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Johnderondon (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds fair. 'Unique' is a fairly strong word and worth using cautiously. 'Unusual' is much more general and seems a good compromise to me. Naturenet | Talk 19:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have made the edit. Thank you to Naturenet for the guidance.Johnderondon (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exemptions

The article says "it is illegal to own any Specially Controlled Dogs without specific exemption from a court", which phrase is echoed in Dogo Argentino#Fighting and Legality, and the subject of a question on the Reference Desk. I couldn't find any reference to a court in section 1 of the act, which defines the offence, only in section 4 which is about destroying dogs; and so I argued that this "exemption" did not exist, and removed the phrase from Dogo Argentino. User:Tango pointed me at this reference, which is rather more readily comprehensible than the Act, and particularly the fact that the Secretary of State has established an exemption scheme. User:CheesyBiscuit has reverted my change to the Dogo Argentino article, on the grounds that this article supports the phrase. Having now looked at the DirectGov page, I am still dubious about this wording. Certainly a court may order that a dog be added to the Index of Exempted Dogs, provided you do all the necessary things to and about it. But as I read the paper (and as Tango said on the Reference Desk) there is no suggestion that you can avoid prosecution and conviction by doing those things: they are to do with exempting the dog from destruction, not exempting the owner from criminality.

Once an owner has been convicted and punished, if they then request that the dog be put on the Index, and comply with all the conditions, I suppose they can then be said to be legally owning a controlled dog; but this is far from an obvious interpretation of "it is illegal to own ... without specific exemption". This is why I want to strike out the phrase both here and in the Argentino article. --ColinFine (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand the problem, however I wonder if this statement clarifies matters for you, "subject to exceptions, possession or custody of a dog to which section 1 applies is prohibited."SI 1991 No. 1742 Road Wizard (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read the reference desk question and I think I understand where you are coming from now. It is possible to be granted an exemption prior to conviction through section 4B of the act (an amendment added in 1997).[2] If an owner of a dangerous dog adheres to the control regime and carries their certificate of exemption then no offence has been committed. As no offence has occurred it can be said that "the owner [has been exempted] from criminality".[3] Road Wizard (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't read the provision the same way you do: in particular, I don't see any reference to an exemption 'prior to conviction'. The Hansard report you link to says "There are those who have had their dogs added to the Index by way of a non-prosecution avenue (section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991-as amended, 1997)", which on casual reading suggests that there is a mechanism for people to apply to have their dogs indexed voluntarily. But I can't find anything in the 1997 act which says anything like that. Section 4B is, first, about destruction orders, not exemption; and secondly its heading "otherwise than on a conviction" is clarified in subsection 1 as "When a dog is seized ... [but] no person is to be prosecuted... ", i.e. it's still about seizure by the authorities. It nowhere says that there is a possibility of registration/exemption in lieu of prosecution.

The Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991 (No. 1744) does authorise voluntary registration, but only for dogs born before the appointed day (30th November 1991). I haven't found anything that reopens that possibility.

So where is voluntary registration authorised? --ColinFine (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Again I am unsure where exactly the confusion lies. Section 4B allows exemption without conviction which means de facto exemption in lieu of prosecution.

You appear to be confused by the wording of the Act. A section of an Act can have multiple clauses that are often confusing even to those familiar with the structure of British legislation. Section 4B is about both destruction and exemption; it is not a problem that the section covers more than one issue. Specifically 4B (2) provides a mechanism to allow the exemption to be considered.

You are correct that voluntary registration for exemption is no longer available, but I am unsure why this is an issue. How does the voluntary nature of registration relate to your question? Road Wizard (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems this is somewhat unclear at best, like a lot of legalese! A quick perusal of the references doesn't shed much light on the matter; upon reading both them and the comments here, I have no objection to the wording being changed again (though neither do I support the change proposed - I'll leave it to others to sort out what the definitive interpretation is). CheesyBiscuit (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As in, either reading seems plausible from a quick read through, and I don't think I can add much more to the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CheesyBiscuit (talk • contribs) 08:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, I am unsure where the confusion is originating from, but perhaps a brief summary of the law would help to clarify things?

• Owners of the four breeds of dangerous dogs were meant to voluntarily register them for exemption by 12 October 1991 (adult dogs) or 30 November 1991 (puppies). After that date it was illegal to own one of the dogs without an exemption.[4]
• As part of the law all dogs designated as dangerous had to be sterilised so no new puppies could be born unless someone had broken the law. There is no specific law banning the importation of dangerous dogs, but the moment they arrive on UK soil they become illegal and subject to seizure. In theory there are no dangerous dogs in the country without an exemption.
• If a dangerous dog is found without a muzzle, lead, microchip, tattoo or insurance and is not sterilised or registered with the local police then an offence has been committed. Also, if all of the controls have been complied with but the owner cannot provide a certificate of exemption then the owner may be prosecuted.Wyre Borough Council
• Court process:
  • A Justice of the peace or equivalent may decide that prosecution is not possible or required under the circumstances of the case.[Section 4B (1) (a)] Without prosecution no one is convicted of a crime. The JoP then considers if the dog should be destroyed or, if it isn't already exempted, whether there are any valid grounds for exemption to occur.[Section 4B (2) (b)] The JoP can then consider a new exemption in accordance with the current exemption regime (published separately to the Act).[Section 1 (5)]
  • If prosecution is still to go ahead, the court may also consider if a new exemption is applicable.[Section 4 (1A) (b)] If no new exemption is applicable the dog is destroyed. In this case the offender can still be found guilty of an offence and punished (owning an uncontrolled or non-exempted dog), but at the same time the dog can be saved and issued with a new exemption.
• If the dog survives the court process it is either returned to the original owner or (if the owner is disqualified from owning dangerous dogs) a new owner. The process begins again at step two above, but this time the dog has a certificate of exemption so it is legal for the owner to have it as long as they comply with the other control measures such as muzzle, lead, etc.

Is it a specific part of this process that is causing trouble? If so I can attempt to provide additional clarification. Road Wizard (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem I am having is with the interpretation of 4b (1) (a) - your para starting "A Justice of the Peace". It is true that it specifically does not spell out the reasons for which a prosecution may not happen. But in my reading, the wording "it appears ... to a JP ... that no person has been or is to be prosecuted" is rather different from your "a JP ... may decide that prosecution is not possible or required". It's that 'required' that makes the difference. To "decide that something is not possible" is interpreting the facts, and is in the same realm as "it appears .. that no person is to be prosecuted". But to "decide that something is not required" is a very different kind of decision, one about policy, and it does not appear to me that the Act authorises this kind of decision. (I've no doubt that there are general legal principles that spell out the limits of a JP's discretion).

Even if you are right about the interpretation of that clause, the fact that the subsection begins "Where a dog is seized" says that it is possible to get an exemption only after action by the authorities, whether or not this leads to conviction; and I think that the wording I originally removed ("it is illegal to own any Specially Controlled Dogs without specific exemption from a court") is therefore misleading, even if strictly true.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

"Decide" was probably a poor choice of word. Acts of Parliament provide the details of how to determine if an offence has been committed; I have yet to see an Act that spelt out the grounds for deciding whether or not to prosecute. Decisions on whether to prosecute a case lie with the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service (or equivalent organisation) based on guidance issued by senior legal figures in the government. I cannot say with certainty how much influence a JoP has on whether a prosecution case goes ahead.

You are objecting to the sentence "it is illegal to own any Specially Controlled Dogs without specific exemption from a court", which implies that you think it is legal to own one without an exemption. This is the core of my confusion here; have I misinterpreted your argument? The statement is correct and I can see no misleading aspect to it. If you own a prohibited animal without a certificate of exemption then you are breaking the law. Road Wizard (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No, that's not my problem. I accept that "it is illegal to own any Specially Controlled Dogs without specific exemption from a court" is true, but I think it is misleading because it invites the question "Well, what do I have to do to get an exemption?" (see the question I linked to on the reference desk). Given that the answer to that question appears to be "Try keeping the dog, and wait until the Police seize it and the CPS decide whether or not to prosecute you: then you might be able to get an exemption", I would call the original sentence misleading.

Note

See http://www.ukandspain.com/dangerous-dogs/ for further information about attacks on us in the U.K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.115.61 (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/domestic/ddogsleaflet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

What about this quote

User:Nomopbs I am wondering if this quote should be included into the article, Kenneth Baker acted without delay, singling out pit-bull terriors as the main offenders. In his own words he admitted: "To put rottweilers, Dobermans and alsatians in the same category as pit bulls ...would have infuriated the "green welly" brigade ... However the pit bull lobby came to my aid by appearing in front of TV cameras with owners usually sporting tattoos and earrings while extolling the allegedly gentle nature of their dogs, whose names were invariably Tyson, Gripper, Killer or Sykes." [5][6]. I feel this is a relevant as a motivation for implementing the Dangerous dogs act law. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure sounds like a stupid thing to say within earshot of the press, however I doubt that social-station discrimination had anything to do with the introduction or passage of the bill — which is what I think you're hinting at. It may, however, have been an answer to a question by an interviewer about why they did not also include in DDA alsations, rotties and dobies since MP Cryer mentioned those breeds specifically.[7]

And "came to my aid" might have been an expression of delight that the ruffian image of the pit bull lobby supporters that day must surely have helped sway in his favor the voters who mattered at the time. (Other MPs, I presume?)

The quote/statement was published in a 1996 article; five years after the DDA was passed. I suspect, instead, that the authors of the 1996 article published the blush-generating Baker statement as part of efforts to get the DDA 1991 modified, which indeed happened less than a year after the article as the 1997 ammendments.

You also have to look at DDA 1991 Section 1: it's all about fighting dogs. Pit bull terriers were indeed invented and used as fighting dogs, whereas alsations, rottweilers, and dobermans were not and have not. Those breeds ARE, however, covered by the Act under Section 3 (as are all breeds). I think the BSL elements of DDA was all about fighting dogs, not just dangerous dogs. The rest of the Act was about dangerous dogs in general (which included the fighting dogs).

To mention the quote in the wiki article today really has no purpose; it doesn't really even support a historic narrative about the passage of the Act and its ammendments. I think mentioning it at all in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 article would be giving undue weight to a 'thought' by a reminiscing Baker no longer in office (as Home Sec). There are, instead, tons of material showing that the people had been clamoring for something like the DDA for a decade.

— Nomopbs (talk) 06:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

My take on the whole "Why pit bull terriers in 1991?" or "Why single out the pit bull terrier?" is this:

• There were 11 horrific attacks; 5 were pit bulls; the others were 2 rottweilers and 1 each of four other breeds
• Though half of the 11 recent horrific attacks were by pit bulls, pit bulls represented less than 1% of the dogs at the time (10,000 pit bulls out of 8,000,000 dogs in UK)
• Pit bulls were a rising problem and increasing in number, with attacks increasing
• Mr Max Madden said "For 10 years we in the animal welfare movement warned that the Government's inactivity in banning the introduction of American pit bull terriers would lead to a massive overproduction by breeders for the purpose of supplying the dog-fighting market. Breeders cannot tell a bitch to have one or two pups. Each time a breeder breeds dogs for the dog-fighting market, a huge surplus finds its way into the open market for those who want such dogs for a macho image and for those who, unfortunately, believe that such dogs can, with training and control, act as normal family pets, but that has not been and never will be the case."
• As a fighting dog, pit bulls were too dangerous to introduce into the genetics stream and mingle amongst pets
• As fighting dogs, they had no value as pets
• There were no other 'fighting dog breeds' in the country at the time (not in any significant numbers, anyway, unless you counted the Staffie; a subject which they probably didn't want to touch with a 10 foot pole!)
• The plan was to (un)breed them out of existence in the country
• There was no downside to getting rid of them all eventually

And lastly, wasn't dog fighting already illegal? So whatever was the point in having a dog fighting dog?

By saying "Kenneth Baker acted without delay, singling out pit-bull terriors as the main offenders" (especially followed by the "social-station" quote that followed) is using loaded language (specifically, 'singling out') to imply that Baker (a) incorrectly evaluated the problem (I don't think he did), and (b) unfairly discriminated against (in the derrogatory meaning of the word 'discriminate') a class of creatures for no good reason at all. I think he had very good reasons. And so did a bunch of MPs.

— Nomopbs (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dwanyewest: Another way to look at it... even though it seems to have been Baker's opinion that even German Shepherds, Rottweilers and Dobermans should have been included with the pit bulls (requiring them to wear muzzles everywhere they go), [8] it remains that when the Act was passed only the pit bulls and Tosas were included. And even though Baker, as Sec of State aka Home Secty, was granted the right to add other breeds or types, he added only Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brasilieros. So the only reason I see for mentioning Baker's opinion and his odd comment about "green wellie brigade" and "tattood pit bull owners" would be to try to smear his reputation some 28 years after the fact in some bizarre attempt to promote a controversy about the Act in order to get it removed or changed in present time. (See WP:NOTADVOCACY.) I just don't see any purpose for it in an encyclopedia article on the subject of the Act. Did it happen? The evidence seems to point to Yes. But Baker wasn't the only player in getting the Act written, introduced, debated, voted or passed. [9] Do we also write about other parties and THEIR opinions about the Act before and after its passage? There have been a lot of issues and concerns brought up about the Act. Defra has conducted several surveys and issued reports. Changes to the Act have been made. We could probably write a book about all the activity that has gone on in the last 28 years to the Act and how the administration of it is operating in the field. But at some point you have to say "Geez, how much does someone really want to read about it in an encyclopedia?" I've read reams of stuff in the last week and have tried to distill it down into a summary form that covers the basics so that it is USEFUL to someone reading it. (Your mileage may vary.) — Nomopbs (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Status update: I'm not yet done with the subject, but I doubt I'll go into much detail about the various controversies leading to changes. When I get down to the controvery/criticism section, I'll probably want to include both sides of any particular controversy. Right now, the criticism section is all "anti-Act" (except for the one sentence I added in this last week). In fact, before I started researching the subject and editing the artice, the whole article was leaning towards two points "The Act is all about banning a whole breed of dog instead of individuals" and "We don't like it". There was nothing mentioned about the "dangerous dogs out of control" angle, nor about the introduction of criminal charges for your dog causing injury to a human. There is still a little work to be done before I consider the article done for the moment as a BASIC article, SUMMARISING the subject for a newcomer wanting to know "What is the Dangerous Dogs Act in the UK that I keep hearing about?" — Nomopbs (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)