I always understood that the Dangerous Dogs Act could not apply if the event occured in a private place, so was confused to read in the Dog World that the uncle of the boy mauled to death by his dog at the grandmother's house was charged under the DDA.

Am i missing something?

Yes the dog was a Pitbull type wasn't it? Any dog of the type has to be registered, tattooed, microchipped, neutered etc, so even if not in public if that hasn't been done, the owner has acted illegally.

For a case like that of course he should be charged.  He had an illegal type dog which killed a child.

a slight tangent to this question but would be interested in peopls views/knowledge. A friends dog was mauled two days ago by  a pit type dog whilst out in our local woods. fortunately after fairly extensive vet treatment and an overnight stay the dog should recover fully. Incidently friends dog has never been dog agressive in any way so the whole attack was a surprise her other dog can be a bit funny and was therefore walked on its lead.
The "attacker " has according to hearsay previously killed a cat and  a jack russell and attacked a dobie. Police are following the latest attack up as should be the dog warden when he returns from holiday. The pittypes owner claims her dog was not the agressor , he has one tiny mark on its body. Unfortunately the attack was not directly seen as the dogs were off lead in dense woodland when it took place my friends dog managing to escape and ran back home (they back on to the woods) while she had her other dog on its lead and was trying sort out what was happening.
As these are all dog on dog attacks should the police insist action is taken to control the dog ? btw it is not officially know if the pit is pure or indeed another breed/mix

> For a case like that of course he should be charged.  He had an illegal type dog which killed a child.

Absolutely!  I'm afraid until people are brought to task over such incidents (particularly ones as tragic as this) then no-one is going to bat an eyelid. 

Secondly to furriefriends... my instant response would be, if the actual incident wasn't seen, it's hard to place blame, other than to say both dogs should really have been under control, regardless of breed.  Dogs are dogs at the end of the day, and again - regardless of breed, some just aren't always going to get on.  Difficult one.

mmm I agree I am just sitting back and listening but was wondering about others opinions.

There are two parts to the DDA, one covering ALL dogs in public places or in private placse where they are not supposed to be... and one covering illegal breeds.

furriefriends - there are two seperate issues going on here, the first is the dog/dog attack/fight.. which is something of a none issue really since neither owner was in control of their dog at the time and neither saw what happened. Hearsay about what this dog may have done in the past is not relevant and neither is guessing what did happen this time, even if it is the most logical answer.

The other issue though is whether this other dog is a pitbull or pitbull type - if it IS then it is illegal and it is up to the police and the courts to decide whether the dog is dangerous (presumably to humans) and potentially add it to the register of exempt dogs (whereby it would be tattooed, neutered, held on a lead and muzzled in public etc etc).