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 or not and the other sections of the act are in relation to private areas in which the dog is NOT permitted to be.

(sorry pressed enter and above post sent before I finished last sentence)

I wont post any more in this thread since the circulartory questions going nowhere but repeating and going over old ground serve no purpose for me to answer since all it is doing is ensuring that anyone who reads the thread becomes confused which is the absolute last thing anyone should want or create.

> 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........

When did I say I was trying to prove you wrong or even that you were wrong at all? Since when is asking questions accusing someone of being wrong?

All I did was state what I was told of the law and advised they should seek advice from someone in case this guy tried get them under the law (as keep in mind if he did he will likely not tell the story the same as the op has). Then u confused me by saying what I had been told was all wrong so I was merely trying to understand the diffrence from what I had been told to what you were saying which was just confusing me more.
Either way Thank you for trying to explain it allthough I'm still confused .

> Since when is asking questions accusing someone of being wrong? <br />

When the person puts links to law sites to prove themselves right, when they are not. When they then look up other laws and acts to also try to prove that the information provided by others is wrong, even though again that was not correct. When they ask the same question in 11 different ways, each time referring to another section of law, act or definition despite repeatedly being given the same answer.  I'm sorry but that is either a person sitting there desperately trying to make themselves find a way of disproving something someone else has said - or arrogance.  What saddens me is that the thing I was concerned about is the scaremongering being done about these set of laws and people unnecessarily confusing people by pulling pieces of information out of context all the time - and sadly the above thread of repeating the same question in a hundred different ways using multiple sections of acts and websites to try and prove a point has in fact exacerbated this problem and I am pretty sure now that anyone reading this thread will as a direct result be even more confused.  I feel ashamed that I was a part of it and wish I had never answered - unfortunately that would have been allowing others to incorrectly guide people and I thought I could stop that - sadly I wasn't going to be allowed to be able to do that it seems.

To all forum members on here reading this thread and for the utter confusion it has no doubt created as a result, I apologise for my part it in it wholeheartedly.

I will say only one thing - never listen to advice on law given by someone who doesn't work in it - get advice if you need it from the right people - shop about for good fixed prices for any work or advice or case as it doesn't have to be the "per hour" or "premium rate" that you think - and remember that there are lots of good lawyers who can help - even those that don't advertise looking for work.

I'm sorry if you think that tinar but that was honestly not what I was trying to do. I posted the links so you could see what I was looking at  in hopes you could see where I was coming from and maby where my confusion was coming from. Yes I may have asked the same questions because I can't get everything your saying, im sorry if that has offended you.

Just saw this one (and in truth, having been bothered to read all the arguments going on!) - if this guy acted in a threatening manner, frankly I'd be onto the police and reporting HIM.   Get your licks in before he does, if he will!!    He may have form/be known to the police in any case.   Your dog didn't bite him (?) so he has no cause to report you as I see it.   It will, unfortunately, with no independent witnesses?,  be your word against his re how he behaved.

Thank you Jo, and thank you for the pm. I’m going to try to make it clearer.

Section 3 - Keeping dogs under proper control) (WITH ALL UPDATES & AMENDMENTS  i.e. what is in effect now ):-

Subsection 1
If a dog is dangerously out of control in any place in England or Wales (whether or not a private place) the owner is guilty of an offence. If the dog, whilst so dangerously out of control, injured any person or assistance dog then they are guilty of an aggravated offence.

A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) where the dog is dangerously out of control while in, or partly in, a building, that is a dwelling or forces accommodation if at that time the person in relation to whom the dog is acting dangerously out of control is in, part in, or in the process of entering, a building as a trespasser or the owner at the time believed that person to be a trespasser with unlawful intent.

This is the offence that has changed since it is now EVERYWHERE public or private. However the dog must be dangerously out of control (i.e. injure or cause any reasonable person to be in real fear and apprehension of injury)and it cannot relate to a person the owner believes is a trespasser with unlawful intentions who is either in, trying to get in, or half in her premises.

The offences relating to private addresses in subsection 3 are no longer going to be used - ie. Being repealed - since the above offence can cover most  cases since amendments were made and completed - anything it doesn’t cover - CANT BE CHARGED  ANYMORE UNDER THIS ACT AS A CRIME- less serious matters are going to be dealt with under different laws and Acts civilly and through Control Orders i.e. non-criminal prosecutions. 

This is a flowchart picture from Defra of how it will now work to decide each case and whether to progress  to criminal prosecution under dangerous dog act or civil prosecution / intervention. It should at the least take the fear out of it for most people, I would hope. http://www.mediafire.com/view/sw1b15q5xibpao9/flow_chart_for_prosecutions_and_courses_of_action_Dang_Dog_Act_wef_2014-issued-by-Defra.pdf

Anything else you have read - doesn’t apply or is no longer up-to-date or correct - or relates to definitions that aren’t relevant to explaining and simplifying this law.

Thank you so much for the chart it helps to see things a little clearer. I have printed it to keep, digest and hopefully have a bit more understanding than I did before

Thank you Tinar, now that I'm understanding more.  Especialy the flow chart!

So a dog doesn't have to harm someone if it gives reasonable fear it may cause harm it's still an offence but it's more serious if it does hurt them so if it does cause harm it goes up from being an offence to an aggravated offence to reflect that it's more serious right?
If I've got that right one more question if that's ok, how is it decided if a dog is just 'out of control' verses 'dangerously out of control' as the flow chart if you say yes it's about a dog out of control it then asks is it dangerously out of control yes or no.

The trespass bit is that saying any building or a home or forces accommodation or is it saying any building that is a house or forces accommodation?

how is it decided if a dog is just 'out of control' verses 'dangerously out of control'

It's that sort of thing/case which eventualy gets an appeal challenge.

Fact is 'dangerous' is a connative word, it does not denote any specific & if or when someone puts their definition to it in a court of law, against their opposing council, then the judge or magistrate makes their decision as to what the word means & makes a ruling.

From then on 'that case' can go through the entire appeal procedure, through the courts hierarchle system, untill it final reaches the house of lords for a final ruling - thats how we get these antecedal rulings & quotes of ''Lord so & so said'' etc etc etc.

That said, these days we have the european court & as guesswork on my part that can take the whole thing further & maybe rule against the UK gov, maybe it cant.
.

> how is it decided if a dog is just 'out of control' verses 'dangerously out of control' as the flow chart if you say yes it's about a dog out of control it then asks is it dangerously out of control yes or no.<br />

If a dog is out of control it basically means that it is unable to be directed or controlled by its owner
If a dog is dangerously out of control it means that whilst it is unable to be directed or controlled by its owner, or its owner omits to try to control the dog, it causes an injury or acts in a way where a reasonable person would be put in fear and apprehension of injury.

They need to first have all witness accounts (not just owner vs person who was in fear normally as that would be virtually impossible to get a conviction on)
They decide if the dog was at the time acting in a dangerous or ferocious manner - sometimes this needs consideration and testimony from an expert from both sides . I can tell you that barking and hopping about near someone does not constitute acting in a dangerous or ferocious manner. It has to be much more than that - such as pulling back lips, growling and moving directly towards a person without stopping etc .
They decide if the dog was out of control (i.e. was it a fleeting second of bad behaviour where the instant the owner attempted to control the dog the dog did as the owner directed - if so that means the dog was not out of control.  If the dog was leashed it cannot be deemed to be out of control entirely unless the leash was ineffective and the owner could not prevent the dogs movement of behaviour with it.)

> The trespass bit is that saying any building or a home or forces accommodation or is it saying any building that is a house or forces accommodation?

With the private place definition relating to trespass - currently it means somewhere the court would decide is either the owners dwelling, or constitutes a dwelling but specifically that has been made NOT to include driveways, gardens, sheds etc.  This particular part of the act is being discussed for amendment but in the meantime in cases where it is a place of work attached to the owners home the Court would have to decide if that was a dwelling of the owner or not.  There are already laws in place under other Acts that dictate behaviour of dogs in work places i.e. they are normally considered to be public places. Again this means it is open to interpretation currently in certain circumstances and a Court would have to make a formal decision on that during a case.

Laws are normally simple and do not cover all eventualities.  They get defined better over time by Case Law.   Case law is basically further definition of parts of an act by way of decisions passed down in an actual case; In other words whenever a case comes up that doesn’t fit perfectly with the definitions in an act and it goes to Court - a Court then decides on that case specifically - and then future similar cases are dealt with in that same manner unless appealed to a higher court who makes a different judgement and then that judgement of the higher court is the benchmark instead.

> That said, these days we have the european court & as guesswork on my part that can take the whole thing further & maybe rule against the UK gov, maybe it cant.

European Courts usually try to interfere, sorry, overrule, whole acts rather than single sections, and aren't supposed to interfere in our Criminal Laws currently  - they normally intervene in cases where it affects a persons human rights more than anything else.  They would have a very hard job interfering in anything to do with out dog laws. Especially since the breeds we have banned for example - aren't banned in many other European countries.

Thank you