Dangerous dogs
It is an offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place or in a private place where it
is not allowed to be. In addition, the ownership of certain types of dog, such as the Pit Bull Terrier English or
American, is prohibited. It is also an offence to breed from, sell or exchange (even as a gift) a prohibited type
of a dog.
The case for government action
People need to be assured there are laws in place that enable the police, local authorities and the courts to
respond when owners have failed to prevent their dogs becoming dangerously out of control.
Latest news
Following a consultation in April 2012, we intend to introduce a number of measures to encourage more
responsible behaviour and deal with consequences that irresponsible dog ownership has on everyone else.
Legislation
the Pit Bull Terrier
the Japanese tosa
the Dogo Argentino
the Fila Brasileiro
Documents (in PDF format) available to download:
It is important to note that, in the UK, dangerous dogs are classified by “type”, not by breed label. This
means that whether a dog is considered dangerous, and therefore prohibited, will depend on a judgment
about its physical characteristics, and whether they match the description of a prohibited ‘type’. This
assessment of the physical characteristics is made by a court.
The 1991 Act was amended by the Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997. The 1997 Act removed the
mandatory destruction order provisions of the 1991 Act by giving the courts discretion on sentencing, and re-
opened the Index of Exempted Dogs for those prohibited dogs which the courts consider would not pose a
risk to the public. Only courts can direct that a dog can be placed on the list of exempted dogs.
The Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Act 1997 (opens new window)
Section 3 of the 1991 Act created a new offence of being an owner of a dog of any type or breed which is
dangerously out of control in a public place or a non-public place in which it is not permitted to be.
Dogs out of control in a public place
If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place - then the owner or the person in charge of the dog is
guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence under the
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. In proceedings against a person who is the owner of a dog but at the material
time was not in charge of it, it should be a defence for the accused to prove that the dog was at the material
time in the charge of a person whom he reasonably believed to be a fit and proper person to be in charge of
it.
Section 10(2) of the 1991 Act defines a public place as meaning any street, road or other place to which the
public have, or are permitted to have access. This is a wide definition of a public place and one which
specifically includes the common parts of a building containing two or more dwellings. It is intended to cover,
for instance, those parts of a block of flats where, although there may be a secure front entry door so that
the interior of the flat is not a place to which the public has unrestricted access, nevertheless the common
parts are, in all other respects, a public place.
A person found guilty of an offence may face imprisonment or a fine, and the courts may disqualify the
offender from having custody of a dog for any period.
Other legislation
Under the Town Police Clauses Act of 1847 it is an offence for any person in any street: to let an
unmuzzled ferocious dog be at large so that it obstructs or annoys the residents or passengers in the street
or puts them in danger; or to set on or to urge any dog to attack, worry or put in fear any person or animal. A
dog will not be at large while it is held on a lead. The word ‘street’ here is given an extended meaning to
include any road, square, court, alley, thoroughfare or public passage.
Metropolitan Police District a similar offence has been created by the Metropolitan Police Act of 1839.
This differs only from the first part of the 1847 Act offence in that it is sufficient that an unmuzzled dog be at
large (no obstruction, annoyance or danger need be shown), and that the place of the offence is described
as any thoroughfare or public place.
Under the Dogs Act 1871, any person may make a complaint to a magistrates court that a dog is
dangerous, or report the matter to the police. If the court is satisfied that a dog is dangerous and not kept
under proper control, it may make an order for it to be controlled or destroyed.
The Animals Act 1971 provides that the keeper of an animal is liable for any damage it causes, if he knows
it was likely to cause such damage or injury unrestrained.
Dog Control Orders
Dog Control Orders replaced Dog Byelaws in April 2006. Existing byelaws remain in effect until such time as
a dog control order for the same issue is made on the same land.
Using the legislation
Section 3(5) of the 1991 Act clarifies the application of the Dogs Act 1871. The strength of the 1871 Act is
that as it is not part of the criminal law, it operates on a lower standard of proof and proceedings can be
taken even when a criminal offence has not been committed. It provides a remedy in a wide range of
circumstances for the destruction, or imposition of controls, on dangerous dogs. A particular advantage of
the 1871 Act is the fact that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house which is why it is
particularly appropriate for action on behalf of people such as postmen and women who are regularly at risk
from dogs in front gardens.
Section 3(5)(b) of the 1991 Act enables a court to make an order under the 1871 Act that a dog is in future
muzzled, kept on a lead, tethered or is excluded from specified places. This is a flexible provision which can
be used to deal with a number of nuisance complaints about dogs including circumstances where dogs in
one back garden cause fear of risk or injury to neighbours in another. Section 3(6) enables the neutering of
male dogs in addition to, or instead of, other measures or controls.
These laws, when applied individually or in combination, serve as a positive encouragement to the owners of
all dogs to exercise safe control over their dogs.
Dogs and trespass
In civil law a dog owner is liable if he or she deliberately sends a dog on to another person’s land in pursuit of
game. A civil offence is also committed if a dog owner allows a dog to roam at large in the knowledge that it
is likely to kill game. No entry on the land by the owner of the dog is necessary in order for the proceedings
to succeed.
If a dog of its own accord enters land without permission but does no more, its owner is not liable under civil
law for trespass; nor is it a criminal offence unless there is a contravention of regulations made under the
Control of Dogs Order. Under civil law it is likely that the dog’s owner would be liable for any damage which it
is in the nature of a dog to commit.
It is an offence for a dog to be at large, ie not on a lead or otherwise under close control, in a field of sheep.
Sheep dogs and police dogs are exempted from this provision.
Dogs worrying livestock
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953
Under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 the owner and anyone else under whose control the dog
is at the time will be guilty of an offence if it worries livestock on agricultural land. The dog must have been
attacking or chasing livestock in such a way that it could reasonably be expected to cause injury or suffering
or, in the case of females, abortion or the loss or diminution of their produce. An offence is not committed if
at the time of the worrying the livestock were trespassing, the dog belonged to the owner of the land on
which the trespassing livestock were and the person in charge of the dog did not cause the dog to attack the
livestock. The definition of ‘livestock’ includes cattle, sheep, goats, swine, horses and poultry. Game birds
are not included.
The Animals Act 1971
Civil liability arises from the Animals Act 1971. Anyone who is the keeper of a dog that causes damage by
killing or injuring livestock is liable for the damage caused. For the purposes of the Act the keeper is the
owner or the person in possession of the dog. The head of the household is liable where the owner is under
the age of 16.
The keeper of the dog is not liable where the damage is due wholly to the fault of the person suffering it or if
the livestock were killed or injured on land onto which they had strayed and either the dog belonged to the
occupier or its presence was authorised by the occupier.
Under the Act there is a defence available to someone who is the subject of civil proceedings for killing or
injuring a dog that was worrying or about to worry livestock. The defence can be used where there were no
other means of ending or preventing the worrying or where the dog that had done the worrying was still in the
vicinity and not under control and there were no practicable means of establishing ownership.
The definition of livestock in the 1971 Act is wider than in the 1953 Act. Here it includes pheasants,
partridges and grouse whilst in captivity.
Guard Dogs
Only section 1 of the Guard Dogs Act 1975 has ever entered into force. This means that all the other
sections relating to a licensing scheme are not in force and neither are there any plans to do so. Section 1,
which is in force, relates to the control of guard dogs.
Section 1 states:
(1) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a person (‘the handler’)
who is capable of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog is under the control of the
handler at all times while it is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(2) The handler of a guard dog shall keep the dog under his control at all times while it is being used as a
guard dog at any premises except:
(a) while another handler has control over the dog; or
(b) while the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises.
(3) A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at any premises unless a notice containing a
warning that a guard dog is present is clearly exhibited at each entrance to the premises.
The owner of a guard dog may be liable for any injury to a person under s 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971,
unless they come within one of the exceptions in s 5.
Key facts and figures
There are approximately 8 million dogs in UK.
In England in 2010, there were over 6,000 hospital admissions resulting from being bitten or struck by a dog
(excludes people treated in minor injury units (MIU) or accident and emergency (A&E) departments, without
being admitted as an inpatient).
In 2009, dog attacks on people in England cost the Health Service £3.3 million.
Estimate of 6,000 dog attacks on postmen/women, parcel force and telecoms staff each year.
Police and local authorities have powers to seize dogs they consider to be dangerously out of control.
Police, local authorities and animal welfare groups work together in some areas to promote responsible dog
ownership.
