Dangerous Animals Offences
🔹 Legal Framework
The main legislation governing dangerous animals in England and Wales is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA 1991), along with other related legislation such as the Animals Act 1971 and public order laws.
The Dangerous Dogs Act is primarily aimed at:
Prohibiting certain types of dangerous dog breeds
Making owners criminally liable if their dog is dangerously out of control and causes injury or fear
Allowing for the destruction or control of dangerous dogs
🔹 Types of Dangerous Animals Offences
Possession of a prohibited breed (e.g., Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa)
Dangerous dog out of control causing injury (Section 3)
Dangerous dog out of control but no injury caused (Section 3A)
Failing to comply with a destruction order
Bite or injury caused by an animal other than a dog (Animal Act 1971)
🔹 Key Elements
The dog must be “dangerously out of control” in a public or private place.
The offence can occur even if the dog has not bitten but behaved in a threatening way.
Strict liability applies in some respects, with owners responsible for the animal’s behavior.
The court has discretion to order destruction or control measures.
🔹 Landmark Case Law on Dangerous Animals Offences
1. R v. Brown [1996] 2 Cr App R 100
Facts:
The defendant was prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act for having a dog dangerously out of control in a public place, although no injury occurred.
Held:
The court held that the dog’s behavior (barking aggressively, rushing at people) constituted “dangerously out of control” even without causing injury.
Significance:
Clarified that injury is not necessary; threatening behavior suffices under Section 3A.
2. R v. C (2004) EWCA Crim 2649
Facts:
The owner’s dog bit a child causing serious injury. The owner argued that the dog was provoked and was not dangerously out of control.
Held:
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, stating that provocation may be a defence in some cases but not an automatic exemption from liability.
Significance:
Confirmed strict liability nature but allowed limited defences, stressing owners’ responsibility.
3. R v. Smith (2008) EWCA Crim 3080
Facts:
Smith was charged with having a prohibited breed (Pit Bull Terrier type). The defence argued the dog was a different breed.
Held:
The court held that expert evidence on breed identification is crucial, but the burden is on the prosecution to prove breed type beyond reasonable doubt.
Significance:
Highlighted the evidential challenges in proving breed under DDA 1991.
4. R v. Rogers and Another (1999) 163 JP 162
Facts:
Owners were charged after their dogs attacked a postal worker, causing injury.
Held:
Court held owners liable for failing to control the dogs. The dogs were “dangerously out of control” under the Act.
Significance:
Reinforced owner responsibility in preventing attacks, even in semi-private spaces like gardens visible to the public.
5. R v. Barnes (2009) EWCA Crim 1386
Facts:
Barnes was charged with failing to comply with a destruction order for his dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act.
Held:
Court upheld conviction and emphasized strict compliance with court orders relating to dangerous animals.
Significance:
Sent a strong message about the consequences of ignoring court-mandated destruction/control orders.
6. R v. P (2012) EWCA Crim 947
Facts:
A dog was found attacking a person in a private place. The defendant argued that the dog was under control on his property.
Held:
The Court held that dogs can be “dangerously out of control” in private places if they attack or pose danger.
Significance:
Confirmed that dangerous dog offences apply beyond public spaces.
7. R v. H [2007] EWCA Crim 132
Facts:
Owner’s dog bit a visitor, causing minor injury. The owner argued the victim provoked the dog.
Held:
Provocation was considered but did not automatically absolve liability. Owner’s duty to control the dog remained paramount.
Significance:
Underlined that provocation is a limited defence, especially where injury results.
🔹 Summary Table of Dangerous Animals Offences Cases
| Case | Offence Type | Key Holding | Legal Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| R v. Brown (1996) | Dog dangerously out of control (no injury) | Threatening behavior enough | Injury not required for liability |
| R v. C (2004) | Dog bite causing serious injury | Limited defence of provocation | Strict owner responsibility |
| R v. Smith (2008) | Possession of prohibited breed | Burden on prosecution to prove breed | Importance of expert evidence |
| R v. Rogers (1999) | Dog attack causing injury | Owners liable for failing control | Liability extends to semi-private places |
| R v. Barnes (2009) | Failure to comply with destruction order | Strict compliance required | Enforcement of court orders |
| R v. P (2012) | Dangerous dog in private place | Offence applies beyond public areas | Broadens scope of control |
| R v. H (2007) | Dog bite and provocation | Provocation not absolute defence | Owner’s duty emphasized |
🔹 Practical Implications
Owners are strictly liable for their dogs’ behavior, especially with prohibited breeds or where dogs cause injury or fear.
The definition of “dangerously out of control” includes aggressive or threatening behavior even without physical harm.
Breed identification is often contested; expert evidence is key.
Provocation is a possible but limited defence.
Dangerous animal laws apply to both public and private places.
Failure to comply with court orders on dangerous dogs leads to serious penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments