Dear Editor,
A Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) was introduced in 1991 with great haste by the UK Parliament following a number of serious injuries to children. The legislation however has turned out to be a bit of a dog’s dinner. The UK Dangerous Dogs Act Study Group (DDASG) is now campaigning for it to be improved to be fit for purpose.
The DDA 1991 was aimed principally at dogs bred specially for their savagery and fighting instincts. If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, the owner and (if different) the person in charge of the dog can be prosecuted under the act.
The offence does not require proof of actual injury, although if any person is injured, the offence becomes triable ‘either way,’ carrying a maximum of two years’ imprisonment. It was not clear when the legislation was debated in the UK Parliament, if the offence was to be one of strict liability, or whether it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the usual elements of criminal law, ie mens rea and actus rea. This has resulted in the difficulty Court of Appeal judges have, trying to apply and interpret this confusing legislation.
The DDASG suggests that new civil legislation should be introduced to give powers to the local authorities and police to issue Control Orders to dogs showing ‘unprovoked aggression.’
This would be along the lines of the Dogs Act 1871. A civil Control Order could require the dog to be muzzled when in a public place or to ensure dog-proof fencing or even to remove the dog to a pound, whether it is in a public area or not. This would serve the purpose of preventing a dog causing an injury.
Whilst Guyana continues, for better or worse, to be a ‘dog eat dog’ society, those in the National Assembly must ensure it never becomes a ‘dog eat human’ society.
Yours faithfully,
Robert S Drepaul
