Firstly I'd like to thank anyone that reads this entire post because I know it will be a long one., wasn't sure what to write in the title.

My partner and I run a business situated next door to our home. We have 3 dogs, and I have one dog in the office as company more than anything each day, so each dog is in once every 3 days. We have 2 lurchers and 1 whippet, one of the lurchers being the same size as a whippet. 2 of our dogs wouldn't make a noise or hurt a fly. One is what we call 'gobby' ie she greets everyone with a waggy tail in our business premises but if she thought someone was to threaten us I know she would bark, she also barks in our home when someone knocks just to let us know someone is at the door.

This last week it happened to be her day in the office. A customer who we'd had a disagreement with a bill over 3 weeks ago turned up. Seemingly to arrange for us to do another job for him, seemed very pleasant and like everything was ok. He asked my partner to check for something which meant he would have to go through to the far end of our buildings, instead of following him he came around to the private office and stood there looking at me. I said hello and asked him if he wanted a drink while he waited and invited him to go around to the customers lobby. He simply said no, I want words about the previous bill, I'm not happy with you. I calmly told him I wasn't going to argue about it and believed it had been sorted as everything had been signed off. The second I said I wouldn't argue about it as I could hear he was wanting an argument from his tone of voice. His body language changed and walked into the office. I asked him politely to go around to the customers area as the office was for staff only and then he flipped, started shouting profanities at me and and told me to f### off you little b###### I'll do what I f###### like and started calling me all the names under the sun. I then picked up the phone and said if he didn't stop threatening me I would call the police, he then came at me so I dialled 999.

My little gobby whippety lurcher started barking at him the second he got aggressive with me, not that he even glanced at her or seemed bothered by it, after all she doesn't look like anything intimidating (she never growled once). By now my partner could hear the dog barking and came running through and got there just as he got in my face and spat at me. As he came at me to spit, although I honestly thought he was going to headbutt me, my little whippety lurcher went to nip his leg but because my partner got there at the right second and stepped between myself and the man and so she got my partners leg instead. It was hardly a nip, she's missing 2 of her canine teeth anyway so doubt she could do any damage if she wanted to. She's never done anything like it before in all the years we've had her, my 6 year old son plays with her all the time, and has grown up with her, I'm 100% sure it was just purely because she thought the guy was going to hurt me.

My question is, after all that, other than it making me bit of a nervous wreck, I'm so very worried that he will try and get our lovely girl taken away and pts out of spite. Could he do that? We don't have signs up because I was told not to put signs saying about a dog being in the office because we would be liable if she so much as barked. So is she safe because she was protecting me in our place of business and was just barking at him? (I doubt he saw her nip my partner because I didn't know she'd done it until my partner told me) Do I need to have a sign up to say we have a dog in the office? We only have a sign on our garden gate as we live on a main road saying 'caution, dogs running loose' purely because we don't want people walking in the back way as they have been known to and let them out onto the main road. Should I call the police back and let them know my dog barked at him when he threatened me just in case? I'm more worried about my little girl getting taken away than this guy coming back for round 2.

Cant really offer any advice but I say good on your Whippet cross for protecting you
I know what I think but things are very much different these days & it seems the innocent party are handtied by rules which favour the guilty

I don't think he would have any case at all! She nipped your partner not him and  bless her she thought she was doing the right thing. I think you are feeling this way as you are understandably shaken up But really if this guy does want to make something of it he acted far worse for acting in a threatening manner. I would remind him of this if he starts trouble but looking at it from the outside you are feeling shaken and shocked and thinking the worst but in reality I bet he is just a bully who hasn't given your dog a second thought and as it was not him that got nipped there is absolutely nothing he can do.

That's awful, no wonder you are shaken up! And well done to your girl for barking,because it alerted your partner. It could have been way worse if she hadn't because your partner was able to run back to support you. You quite clearly asked him to return to the customer area, twice I think you said so he was definitely in the wrong area, but as it stands it his word against yours and if you don't think he saw the nip I don't think I'd say anything to anyone. (Other than us of course and we won't say anything ).
However....... if you think there might be a round 2, would it be worth putting in CCTV? Then you'd have concrete evidence if he comes in and starts on you. What a git.

I'm so very worried that he will try and get our lovely girl taken away and pts out of spite. Could he do that? We don't have signs up because I was told not to put signs saying about a dog being in the office because we would be liable if she so much as barked. So is she safe because she was protecting me in our place of business and was just barking at him? (I doubt he saw her nip my partner because I didn't know she'd done it until my partner told me) Do I need to have a sign up to say we have a dog in the office? We only have a sign on our garden gate as we live on a main road saying 'caution, dogs running loose' purely because we don't want people walking in the back way as they have been known to and let them out onto the main road. Should I call the police back and let them know my dog barked at him when he threatened me just in case? I'm more worried about my little girl getting taken away than this guy coming back for round 2.

You really need to get a solicters advice on this, the law changed about dogs on private property (he was trespassing the second he went behind the counter without permision or invitation) you really do need to get a lawyers advice....
.

We too have dogs in the office so I understand what you are going through, although one dog we feel safer to shut her away if a rep turns up as she is a rescue and doesn't take kindly to strangers.

I think in your case he cannot have your dog taken away for barking a warning when he trespassed, it's good that your partner was the one bitten and not the obnoxious man.( sorry partner) What he did was threaten you verbally and physically and your dog barked at him, I feel sure this is permissible. Had your dog attacked him them I am not sure where you stand in law.

Perhaps you should consider reporting him to the police for intimidation and threatening behaviour and leave mention of the dog bite out of it, maybe just mention the barking if you feel the need.

I know you are worried about your dog, but if you hadn't had a dog with you what would you have done, would you have reported him? You could have been badly hurt by him if your partner had not been alerted, so your dog actually saved you from harm - make a report to the police against him instead of waiting to see what he does. He is in the wrong and not you or your dog in my opinion.

First off I hope your feeling a little better after this horrible confrontation and well done to your dog protecting you. This foul man hasn't a leg to stand on regarding making a complaint about you or dog.He wasn't bitten or assaulted unlike the verbal and intimidation tirade you endured. Have you got CC tv? If so possibly an image taken off to show police?
I'd keep to your set routine with dogs and not worry re dog alerts posters.
Sending tlc hugs

Plus spitting is an offence under section 5 of the public act.

Plus spitting is an offence under section 5 of the public act.

Agree. Also stepping into private property and threatening behaviour 'to boot'.

Tarka......for goodness sake call the police on this man, why have you even waited?  Why would any business put up with someone doing that? He is a coward who picked on you once your partner was gone, an utter coward...who does he think he is?  I can't believe you have done nothing.........

As for your dog......sending her a big piece of cyber steak, she did what most of our dogs would do in these circumstances.

But more importantly......Why are you worried about your dog?

She did not bite the man, she did not attack him in any way..... Shhhh.....no-one needs to know she accidently bit your partner, no-one needs to know she even barked, personally I'd not declare either of those things if anything is said by this man, she did him no harm so honesty is not always the best policy, as far as anyone is concerned she was just in the office?  Why even think of dropping her in it, sure your partner will not be saying anything. The man has nothing to show she was acting in protection mode for you. So keep schtum!

Report the man for his aggressive and threatening behaviour, (but I would certainly look into the legalities of having dogs in a place of business for future reference.)

Your dog did nothing wrong. However this man did and the police need notifying so make sure you do and hopefully it will all get sorted. He sounds a bully and goodness know how many other people he may have been the same towards. If the police don't know they can't do anything.
What a horrible man and scary situation it must have been :(

She did not bite the man, she did not attack him in any way.

I'm glad you wrote that, i just re-read it again & see it did not bite the guy, so your dog is 100% safe poster.

I also agree you should call the police, I think spitting & hiting you with it comes under common assault, thats a criminal offence, I mentioned trespass, there are 2 trespass laws, one civil & one criminal, he commited a criminal trespass, there are probably around 2 to maybe 4 seperate criminal offences....let is know, but, in the meantime dont worry about your dog, no offence was commited against him & the police should be informed about the whole thing.
.

Thanks for everyone's replies. I'll try to answer some of the questions.

We had cctv put in recently, but when it was put in the hard drive for recording wasn't working and so the company have had to order a new one in and so although it is up and running we won't have recording until the end of this next week at the earliest.

The reason I was worried about her barking is because the people who put our cctv in said that we need to put signs up saying we now have cctv because if we don't we would be up for 'encroaching on peoples privacy', so I commented about putting signs up about the dogs but he was pretty sure that we shouldn't do that as it would advertise that we thought our dogs were dangerous.

My concern about the barking is because I have read that if someone thinks a dog is a threat, and that can just be barking, they could report it and the dog be taken away or an 'asbo'? put on them.

The police did attend, but turned up approx. 30 mins after my partner managed to get the man off the premises ( I dialled 999) during the confrontation). I was so shaken up I didn't even think about the dog barking and so it hadn't entered my head to tell them, and my partner didn't tell me she'd managed to nip him until after the police had gone.

Follow up with the police to see what they are doing and if need be advise them that you want to bring charges against him, otherwise he will think it's ok to treat people like this. He shouldn't be allowed to get away with this as imagine if your partner had popped out and you were alone. It seems as though he thinks it's ok to rough up a woman as he waited until your partner had gone, so maybe he has a history of female abuse.
Your dog has done nothing wrong

I agree with Sillysue, this awful mans behaviour needs to be logged with the police.
You're dog did nothing wrong and in any case your partner would just need to deny it.
Bless her little heart, she's a heroine.

If I was you it would be worth getting some advice from someone like Trevor Cooper.

The trespass claws on the dda is only if someone has entered or is entering your home and as this was in your works office not your domestic house I would guess it would not come under this claws, Under the law a dog doesn't have to bite someone to be classed as out of control, someone just has to have reasonable fear the dog will harm them. Allthough as he was threatening you that may make a diffrence I don't know, and even if he was able to report you as the dog  didn't harm him and he was the problem I'd imagin the police wouldn't take the dog away especially as dogs who have badly bitten have just been ordered to be muzzled and put on a lead before.

I'd in the future have the dog in a penned off area or keep the doors locked to make sure you never get any problems with the barky one especially if say a delivery person came in the office or a customer wandered in.
You could all so put up a sing such as "dog running lose in office please  knock" as its not a warning as such, I'm sure people have posted before that those are ok

SS
Follow up with the police to see what they are doing and if need be advise them that you want to bring charges against him

Thats my thinking, the only problem is that the final decision to prosecute is not a police decision, it is a crown prosecution decision & they would make the decision based on their local budget allowance, although they can claim costs the actual decision to award costs is made by the court.

Once you have CCTV footage you yourself can make the criminal charges at the local magistrates, no idea about costs etc but if you do push for prescution be sure your doing it to insure against futor repetitions & not personal vengance, courts don't take it lightly if they think they being used like that.
.

You've had a horrible experience but what a little star your girl is, you must be very proud of her. I would not mention to the police that she tried to protect you, she did not bite him so is not involved in the incident.

The customer sounds a revolting piece of work, to send your husband away just so he could go for you is disgusting and cowardly, hope he gets a hefty fine as money seems so important to him. My first 2 Chows saw off a man creeping round my property late at night, although I would never knowingly put my dogs in harms away, I was so relieved they saw him off. They really are our best friends aren't they.

He assaulted you, this needs to be taken seriously both by you and your partner but also by the police, never mind your poor little dog, she was only trying to protect you.

Assault does not have to be physical the threat of violence certainly qualifies as does threatening behaviour

have a chat with Trevor cooper of dog law. He is excellent and will soon reassure you and give advce. In he first instance for the price of a premium rate phone call  http://www.doglaw.co.uk/

> Plus spitting is an offence under section 5 of the public act.

No its not - it a section 39 offence of Common Assault OAP Act - far more serious than sec 5 POA - and the swearing at her causing her or "using threatening words and behaviour" is a section 4 POA offence which again is more serious than sec 5, the Police should have known that and arrested him for assault due to the spitting and then charged him with Common Assault and Section 4 POA.

Your dog did nothing wrong - you did nothing wrong - you are not liable for anything and he cannot put your dog to sleep or call him dangerous.

However - you need to get legal advice re signage at the property marking that there is a) a dog on premises past a certain point and b) that that certain point is not open to the public - just to make sure that if your dog did in any way bite anyone misunderstanding something in the future you and her would not be liable.

Other than that, on this incident at least you have nothing to worry about and did nothing wrong so far as the law is concerned.

P.s. Trevor Cooper is a solicitor who has decided to specialise in Dangerous Dog Law etc - however the incident you had was a criminal incident and you were the victim something that he wont deal with as he doesn't do crime and solicitors that do would be representing the defence not the victim - its the police and cps that are there to protect and represent the victim.  He can however advise on steps in the future i.e. signs etc that protect your rights and interests when your dog is with you at work from any sort of prosecution or civil suit - it would be worth ringing him to talk about that - and it would be worth making sure your insurers for your business and your dog are aware that dogs are on the premises too since there can be that implication to worry about.

> P.s. Trevor Cooper is a solicitor who has decided to specialise in Dangerous Dog Law etc - however the incident you had was a criminal incident and you were the victim something that he wont deal with as he doesn't do crime and solicitors that do would be representing the defence not the victim

Yes but he can advise her if there is a risk if the man can try to do her under the dda, as the tresspass claws won't cover there business office only there domestic home.

the tresspass claws won't cover there business office only there domestic home.

It would not cover it if any written invitation to anyone to enter 'a particular area of space' & the incident took place within 'the area' they were 'invited' onto - my understanding of what the OP wrote is that the guy went off the permitted area & was even asked to go back 'onto/into' the permitted area - only in the permitted area would someone not be guilty of trespass.
.

Yep - the minute you, the proprietor, make it clear to a person that they must leave any part of your building or premises and they either continue to enter or don't leave when asked then the man is trespassing. If the man in any way went through a door that stated "private" and not for public use - then he is trespassing. If any man entered an area that was either signed to say it was private or was told it was private, entered anyway or refused to leave and then conducted himself in the way he did - well - that's aggravated trespass.

In the OP's described circumstances the Dangerous Dog Act is absolutely not applicable at all.

I would still talk to Trevor anyway

Yes but under the dangerous dogs act your only safe if a tresspasser is inside or entering your domestic home. This didn't happen in their home it happens in there lace of business.
"If the incident takes place in, or partly in, a building which is a dwelling or forces accommodation, then if the victim is a trespasser this is regarded as a Householder Case and the Defendant will have a defence."
http://www.doglaw.co.uk/dangerous_act1991.php

I think your missing the point - the OP didn't say her dog was out of control in the business or that the dog bit anyone - the dog responded verbally when the man was ALREADY acting illegally, had already entered a place he was not permitted and was told to leave, had already become aggressive and had already ASSAULTED the OP - and even then the dog was not out of control - it did not hurt or attack the man. Where exactly do you think there is any part of that story where the dog is provable to be acting in a dangerous or out of control way in a public place?

The new extension of the laws was designed to bring owners not just to task if their dogs were off the lead outdoors and harmed or alarmed someone - but specifically for cases where a dog was in the owners home or premise and kept in such a state as to be out of control and dangerous to any occupant or entrant - the rules were expanded to cover cases where dogs are kept untrained and in unsafe conditions, hungry perhaps, in their owners homes/workplaces and as a result attacked an entrant or escaped and attacked nearby UNPROVOKED.

None of this fits her case and I am absolutely certain that no police or prosecution will happen and if it did it would be thrown out of court at the very first hearing since it shouldn't be.

If the OP gets any issue - pm me - I can give you details of Barristers that deal with it an experts from the expert witness list she can go to in order to get a formal assessment done of her dog to help nip any accusations in the bud.

it would be thrown out of court at the very first hearing since it shouldn't be.

Exactly, it would not even be heard, it would be a straightforward "No case to answere" & thrown straight out of court.
.

A dog doesn't have to bite or even hurt someone to be classed as dangerously out of control, the person just has to have reasonable fear it will. I never said I felt the dog should be done under it however this guy is obviously dodgy and they are worried he may try it something. All I'm saying is they are best off getting some advice from someone like Trevor Cooper to find out how far it all the man could take it. As after all I'm sure if the guy did try something he isn't likely to tell the story truthfully is he.

exactly jo. which is why I have been saying speak to someone specializing in this trevor cooper dog law  being or  wheldons being another. its so touchy now and not worth taking chances yo do need advise from experts even if everyone thinks it should be fine

It's why I no longer exercise my dogs off lead. 

They are a very sociable breed, but also inclined to be vocal at play, or greeting.  Being show dogs they assume everyone wants to be their friend.

So many people associate barking with aggression no matte the rest of the body language or intention.

> A dog doesn't have to bite or even hurt someone to be classed as dangerously out of control, the person just has to have reasonable fear it will.

I'm really sorry Jo but that is just simply not correct.  There are 3 main offences under section 3 and they still stand worded as:

1) Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place, injuring any person (Dangerous Dog Act 1991 - section 3(1)) - amended to now read "Owner or person in charge of a dog dangerously out of control in a public place" - section 3(1)

2) Owner of person in charge allowing a dog to be in a private place where the dog is not permitted to be, injuring any person - section 3(3)(a)) - remains the same

3) Owner of person in charge allowing a dog to be in a private place where the dog is not permitted to be which makes a person fear injury - section 3(3)(b) - new/as amended

Absolutely NO offence for a person having a dog that puts someone in fear whilst a) not dangerously out of control or b) in a permitted place (or where any person put in fear is not permitted)

The Dog Act is being misquoted and misunderstood all over the internet with people thinking that they can be prosecuted for something happening in all sorts of circumstances WHEN THEY CANT.

The Act is putting people in fear that something could happen with their dog ONCE and their dog be put down - WHICH IT CANT - there has to be a LOT of aggravating features and usually more than one incident and significant injury before a Court will consider this or before a court will consider jailing an owner. People are fearing something VERY VERY VERY UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN in 99% of cases.

Lastly - Trevor Cooper is probably a good solicitor who is a self-elected and self-promoted "specialist" however he is NOT the only one that is VERY good that does Dog cases - he is just the only one that charges PREMIUM rate phone calls (!!!!!), heavily advertises, and does NO other law.  Prosecutions under the Dangerous Dog Act are CRIMINAL CASES heard in a CRIMINAL COURT - anyone would be remiss to advise people not to shop about and actually instruct a CRIMINAL DEFENCE TEAM - preferably one that has rights of audience in a Crown Court should the case be sent up for Jury trial or for higher sentencing powers which Dangerous Dog cases can as they are either-way offences.  Solicitors cannot stand up and talk in a Crown Court UNLESS they are in fact qualified HIGHER COURT ADVOCATES - if they are not then they have to instruct a BARRISTER in the higher courts.  Perhaps it would be wise to instruct a person who is able to see a case all the way from start to finish? Such as a Criminal Solicitor with Higher Rights who does Dog law - or directly instruct a Barrister from start to finish under the new public access rules?  That is what I would advise especially as it is likely to also save THOUSANDS of pounds that way - bearing in mind that even if you win the case you will not get all your defence costs back anymore since the law has changed in criminal prosecutions so that you can spend whatever you like on your defence but the government will only refund you the equivalent of legal aid rates which is often only a £45 per hour of work when private fees can be anywhere up to £250 per hour.  Criminal firms and barristers will also set a FIXED fee for the entire case if asked rather than hourly rate.

If you asked me - I would be recommending several people and not just the one solicitor. 
http://www.1itl.com/dangerous-dogs.html
http://www.penmansedgwick.com/PracticeAreas/Criminal/DangerousDogs/DangerousDogsCases.aspx

P.S. Sorry if that came across as abrupt - no offence to you Jo, or any others but it has been grinding on me for months how badly misunderstood that Law is and also that people seem to be unaware that specialist does not mean expert and advertising all of the dog pages doesn't make someone the best person for the job - I just wanted to make sure people knew that there are other options before they decide to seek advice from anyone in particular........

If that's the case Tinar why does it say this on the government site and the act online that I can find?

In the act online (don't know if this is the updated one or not)
"(5) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the M1Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control)—.
(a)may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and.
(b) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise."

And on the governments website it says
"1. Overview

It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere, such as:
##in a public place
##in a private place, eg a neighbour’s house or garden
##in the owner’s home

The law applies to all dogs.

Out of control

Your dog is considered dangerously out of control if it:
##injures someone
##makes someone worried that it might injure them"

> If that's the case Tinar why does it say this on the government site and the act online that I can find?

Well mostly because that is SECTION 2 which is a CIVIL offence where the police have no power of arrest, the owner cannot be fined, ordered to pay compensation or jailed, or stripped in any way of ownership of the dog and the police have no power to seize the dog. It is a CIVIL action brought by the COUNCIL to force an owner of a dog to face having the dog ordered to be given a "control order" i.e. restrictions such as muzzling etc imposed - in order to protect the public IN THE FUTURE. It is an offence THAT ONLY RELATES to putting orders ON THE DOG to restrict and prevent possible CRIMINAL DANGEROUS DOG ACT OFFENCES in the future. The owner is not brought to task in any way other than having restrictions put on the dog due to the dogs proven misconduct (i.e. WITH INDEPENDENT WITNESSES AND EXPERT TESTIMONY).

That's why it doesn't apply to this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DDA watch says the same thing as well but about section 3. The government page doesn't say its about any sersific section
Sorry might just be me not getting it but I don't see why what the government says and dda watch say relating to the changes to section 3 wouldn't apply

> Sorry might just be me not getting it but I don't see why what the government and dda watch say relating to the changes to section 3 wouldn't apply

You are quoting the changes to section 2 and putting them into the similar offences of section 3 - that is not correct.

..in fact you know ... the changes made it so it is no longer mandatory for a dog to ever be put down no matter what offence including banned breeds.... it is case and circumstance dependent.....so in many ways it is actually HARDER now for anyone to seize and put a persons dog to sleep and certainly never ever ever on the basis of no injury, in a non-permitted area, after an assault on the owner took place in front of the dog who has no control order or documented history of bad behaviour.

The scaremongering misreading of this act really has to stop it's ludicrous.

but its all says its section 3 not section 2?
the act bit I quoted from says Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 You are here:1991 c. 65Section 3, the amendments say In section 3 (keeping dogs under proper control)

im not saying it could be taken away or put down, infact I did say id imagin it would be unlikey but was saying they should get some advice on the matter incase this guy tries to spin a story to make a report aginst them.

No it doesn't.

Section 2 - Civil - not criminal - has to be proven by a dog being "dangerously out of control" and that is defined as whether injury is caused or just that a reasonable person would be in fear of injury. That is either in a public place or private dwelling, with the dog in any area PERMITTED OR OTHERWISE.

Section 3 (all three subsection offences) - Criminal - has to be either a dog dangerous out of control in a public place - OR - an owner allowing a dog to be in a private place where the dog is NOT permitted to be which makes a person fear injury or be injured. It does not say that the dog has to be classed as dangerously out of control on the private premises offences, but it does have to cause injury or put a person in fear of injury WHILST NOT IN A PERMITTED AREA.

well all i can say is it says section 3, obviously im not a lawer im only going off that the title of the page say
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
1991 c. 65 Section 3
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/3

is this not really section 3?

and the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 says its section 3 that has now ben changed to any place in England and wales with a householder case and that subsection 3 of section 3 as been repealed
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/part/7/enacted

Is this wrong?

It just sounds like there saying something different?

CUT AND PASTED FROM YOUR OWN LINK

Section 3

DEFINITIONS OF:-
Keeping dogs under proper control.
(1) A dog is dangerously out of control in a public place if
(a) the owner; and/or
(b) if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog,
is only guilty of an offence, or, if the dog while so out of control injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection. (This means the AGGRAVATED offence is if injured , the offence is still made out if there is only a fear of injury but its not the aggravated offence)

(2) In proceedings for an offence under subsection (1) above against a person who is the owner of a dog but was not at the material time in charge of it, it shall 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.

(3) If the owner or, if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog* allows it to enter a place which is not a public place but where it is not permitted to be and while it is there*—
(a) it injures any person; or
(b) there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so, he is guilty of an offence, or, if the dog injures any person, an aggravated offence, under this subsection.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (3) above other than an aggravated offence is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both; and a person guilty of an aggravated offence under either of those subsections is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.

(5) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an order under section 2 of the M1Dogs Act 1871 (order on complaint that dog is dangerous and not kept under proper control)—
(a) may be made whether or not the dog is shown to have injured any person; and
(b) may specify the measures to be taken for keeping the dog under proper control, whether by muzzling, keeping on a lead, excluding it from specified places or otherwise.

(6) If it appears to a court on a complaint under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 that the dog to which the complaint relates is a male and would be less dangerous if neutered the court may under that section make an order requiring it to be neutered.
(7) The reference in section 1(3) of the M2Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 (penalties) to failing to comply with an order under section 2 of the said Act of 1871 to keep a dog under proper control shall include a reference to failing to comply with any other order made under that section; but no order shall be made under that section by virtue of subsection (6) above where the matters complained of arose before the coming into force of that subsection.

Nope - you are just misreading it all.

so if a dog doesn't hurt someone but makes them reasonably afraid the dog will hurt them its section 2 and if found to be true they get ordered to me muzzled ect but if the dog does hurt them it steps up to section 3 where your looking at fines ect? Yes?

(This means the AGGRAVATED offence is if injured , the offence is still made out if there is only a fear of injury but its not the aggravated offence)

so is it right or not that a dog doesn't have to injure someone to be classed as out of control under section 3?

Not exactly.

If the council receive a complaint of a dog behaving dangerously out of control in EITHER a public place or a private place, permitted or otherwise, but it does have to be proven to be "dangerously out of control". They can decide to summons you as the owner of the dog to a CIVIL Court under section 2.  That hearing is to decide if the dog was dangerously out of control at the time of the incident and that the incident was unprovoked and did occur, and thereafter it is to decide if similar circumstances arose if the dog would be likely to behave in the same dangerous manner, or if he is likely to exhibit those behaviours in any other situations -  if it is decided that it could happen again then they have to make a decision as to whether there are any controls that can be ordered to stop this risk. They then impose the controls they feel justified such as the dog being muzzled at all times in public - or the dog being muzzled at all times both in public and at home when persons other than the owner are in the house or likely to enter the house. However it is considered also an "aggravated" breach of Section 2 if there was injury caused - and therefore that would be dealt with more strictly and more controls can be imposed and even in very very rare cases the dog could be ordered to be put to sleep if it is found to be so dangerous and so likely to reoffend that no controls imposed would negate the risk to the public or members of the owners household. The owner however cannot be fined, ordered to pay compensation, given any sort of conviction or sent to jail. They can only be ordered to pay court costs for the case and then only if they lose and controls are imposed.

Section 3 is a criminal offence so the police charge or summons and prosecute in a Criminal Court.  Then the Owner is brought to Court.  If convicted they have a criminal record. They get given a sentence of anything up to prison and may have to go to a Crown Court for bigger sentencing powers if its a serious case and 6 months prison possible in the Magistrates Court is insufficient.
The first possible offence under this section is where you can only be charged with this offence if your dog was dangerous out of control in a public place and injured a person or put them in reasonable fear of being injured.  This is the most serious one.
The second possible offence is where the dog causes injury to someone on private premises where the dog is in an area it is NOT permitted to be. Second most serious offence.
The third possible offence is where the dog causes someone to be in real fear of injury on private premises but again where the dog is in an area it is NOT permitted to be. This is the least serious offence.

> so is it right or not that a dog doesn't have to injure someone to be classed as out of control under section 3?

Yes BUT under section 3 they must be Dangerous out of control in a PUBLIC PLACE - or they must injure or cause an injury to be feared in a PRIVATE place (but NOT Dangerously out of control) but ONLY when the dog is in an area it is NOT PERMITTED to be.

i.e. there is no offence under section 3 for a dog not being dangerously out of control in an area it IS permitted to be on private premises - irrelevant as to whether injury was caused or feared to be cause or not!

P.S. You have to remember the burden of proof is a LOT lower in a Civil Court then in Criminal.  If there is not enough evidence for a criminal section 3 prosecution then they tend to go down the civil route with section 2 to put controls on the dog instead since although the offences are similar they do not have to prove their case to such a high standard.

> If the council receive a complaint of a dog behaving dangerously out of control in EITHER a public place or a private place, permitted or otherwise, but it does have to be proven to be "dangerously out of control". - However it is considered also an "aggravated" breach of Section 2 if there was injury caused

> The first possible offence under this section is where you can only be charged with this offence if your dog was dangerous out of control in a public place and injured a person or put them in reasonable fear of being injured.  This is the most serious one.

But with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 saying section 3 subsection 1 of the dda the part 'a public place' is changed to 'any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)' and subsection 3 is is repealed.
Is this not all just saying the same thing now?

Jo - that is a different act. In law key phrase have different meanings in different laws. What constitutes "dangerous" in a Road Traffic Act Offence is not the same as what constitutes Dangerous in the Ant-Social Behaviour Act or the Dangerous Dog Act or anything else.  All laws have sections where the meaning of key phrases within the act are defined and specified for that act.  You cant look at the phrases from one Act and take it to mean the same in all. It doesn't work like that. For example a "public place" in the road traffic act is defined as "any road or place to which the public may have access" but that is not the same definition of a public place as in Dangerous Dog Act OR Anti-Social Behaviour Act.  They are worded different in each act and mean different things in each Act.

And section 3 subsection 1 of the DDA IS the offence of a dog being Dangerous out of control in a Public Place OR private place . The definition you just stated in that act which clarifies the wording of the other act - but it still means the same as I have said above in all the posts for that particular offence.  Sec 3 (1) Dangerously out of control in a public or private place - it is NOT referring to the other Section 3 subsesection offences (2)  or (3) since they are offences of which the dog does not have to be "dangerously out of control" and only refer to private places not public and only those that the dog isn't permitted to be in.

I have to go to work now (which, by the way is today involving sitting at Court during a DDA case) - I don't know why you are so determined to try to prove I'm wrong about this; but in any event. I'm not. All the above is correct and there is nothing much I can add if you refuse to believe anything anyone else is saying. Perhaps you need Mr Cooper to say it........

> But with the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 saying section 3 subsection 1 of the dda the part 'a public place' is changed to 'any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)' and subsection 3 is is repealed.

That was a change to clarify that the DDA Sec 3 (1) offence was no longer JUST public places but ALSO private places - the DDA then goes on to further explain that in Sec 3(1) it is a public or private place in which the DOG IS PERMITTED to be.