I have a rottie male 7 years old. He has been trained to protect me and is very intelligent. In his earlier years he has saved the life of two young children from falling into a swimming pool by raising an alarm.

This dog has never hurt a fly, until recently.

My son's friend was going up the back stairs and the dog bit his heel quite deeply. Nobody saw what actually happened so we only have the "victims" word for what happened. To my mind the dog would not do something unless there was a incident to provoke the dog either whittingly or unwittingly. We of course did all the right things and took him to the doctor etc. The family were quite understanding about this and said that they could accept that accedents happen, and would not be taking the matter further. This however could not be further from the truth and they did. (And perhaps understandably so).

It was put into the hands of the council who have visited, and their representative was puzzled, because he wonderd "What aggressive dog" and could not find any manner to accuse him. However he said it would be up to his boss. A statement has been given by the "victim" but we were told that any statement we make would not be taken into consideration. To cut a long story short, the dog has been deemed dangerous, has to be de-sexed, not allowed to go for walks in public. And I am to be heavily fined, have the dog tagged. And registration each year is increased by over 1500%. This whole matter has taken from January to April. The council claim they were waiting for the doctor's report. There are a number of factors involved here. If the council or the doctor were in any way concerned about the public being protected from my dangerous dog then the matter should have been concluded with urgencyy in a matter of days. This to me is obviously not the case - it is a red tape excersize - they are not concerned about protecting the public - all they want is to do the paperwork to raise vast sums of money.

Whilst I feel for the "victim" and the family - the victim did not report the incident until weeks after it happened. The doctor and the council did not act quickly. And my argument is that if my dog is as dangerous as is claimed then this should have been attended to as a matter of urgency and not a matter or routine. Decisions about my dog have been made without consulting me. Without even asking me to any hearing. It was all done behind closed doors.

I would appreciate your comments on what I can do to make the faceless burocrats who push papers behind desks reconsider that the excesive time they have taken to come to a decision is not endictive of a dog that is a danger to public.

Chloe

Hi Chloe

There is an excellent canine solicitor (specialising in canine cases not a dog himself!) and I think his name is Trevor Cooper? He writes (or used to anyway) in one of the monthly dog mags and I am sure you could get his contact details though them.

Does anyone know which mag he writes for as I don't get them and can't remember. He was of tremendous help to me when I had a male returned a few years ago.

Christine

Contact: Justice For Dogs....Specialist Canine Solicitor ...Trevor Cooper - 01304 812 610

SORRY to hear of the way you & the dog have been treated it sounds like your local council burocracts have tried & found the dog guilty without any real evidence of exactly what occured or any expert oppinions
was the representative from the council qaulified in any way to make judgment on the dog & it's behaviour?
I hope someone can give you & any other owners that might find themselves in similar situations LEGAL info about this matter
will be keeping close eye on postings with concern!!!

Karl

If this has occured in the UK the council have no right to deem your dog dangerous that is down to the courts to decide. I would ignore what they say until such time as your dog is deemed such by the courts. Of course if this didnt occur in the UK then I do not know the rules and regulations so cannot comment.

I really don't know anything that may help on this one:( Sorry after reading it I though I'd better just offer you my sympathy:(

Hello Chloe,

If you are resident in the UK, then I am sure that a Magistrates Court are the body who deals with this. They would need to be convinced that this incident is sufficient to prove that your dog does have a dangerous disposition. The Court can impose an order if they feel necessary, to impose a Control Order, requiring you to keep your dog under proper control in the future. Obviously, after seven years, he must presumably be known to be either aggressive or not, and this ONE INCIDENT (that cannot be proved was WITHOUT provocation) is not what I believe to be sufficient evidence to indicate your dog is a danger to the Public.


You could always make further enquiries at your local Citizens Advice Bureau, phone them and explain your problem and ask if you could arrange an appointment to have a talk with one of their legal representatives. (They are very helpful, would give you a good guide to your 'Rights within the Law' and amazingly is FREE).

Hope everything works out well for you,
Denise.

I'm writing all this down just in case Max bites Celia or John Rogerson

Thank you to all who are responding - I am a resident of Australia, and was looking for ideas of how to effectively handle the council. I appreciate the response and sympathy of all who have replied, some of which has been a great help. And whilst I understand that a great many of you may not understand how Australian legislation works because there are differences between here and the UK I have found help in your words.

Chloe

I think the important point for everyone is the practical application of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act here in UK. It does not have to bite, in legal fact, if the dog is considered dangerously out of control, by another person it can be siezed forthwith.

Do hope that in Australia that you still have sum sort of appeal board that you can put your case to and be heard fairly

karl

Chloe, I think your biggest problem is that there appear to be so many different regulations depending on which region you reside in :-(
If you type 'Dangerous Dogs Act Australia' into a Search Engine you will come up with lots of information. You could also try the Australian Kennel Club as they may be able to point you in the right direction of someone who can advise you. Good Luck.

UPDATE

We have since had to move the dog on and this has coursed us much distress. When tthe final parting came the dog also was clearly in distress. But at least he now has the chance of a good life. The cost that the council was going to cause us was outrageous, more than we could afford, but we were not going to have them put the dog down. Regisration I said would increase by 1500% this was not the case it is actualy 2820% + tagging, desexing and various other costs as well as the fine. There would be no quality of life for the dog. The Council (Brisbane City) have been outrageously rude, and amongst other things have accused us of still having the dog and we will check every day till we see it back with you. And have vow to track down the dog. We know he is in good hands. The Team Leader triumphantly announces - "We have tracked them down to New Zealand - we will soon get yours" (what a big man).

I found a law that federal parliment stated that counsils must propose a dog to be dangerous, and give 14 days for reply, but they said that in this case this does not apply. From the start to the declaration there has not been one scrap of paperwork till the issue of the fine.

We miss our dog very much, and so does his mate - she is now barely eating.

Thank you all for your care and support.

Chloe

Hi Chloe,

What a horrible experience for all of you. It really is a terrible shame when laws brought in to protect the general public are abused by over-zealous bureaucrat.

Love and hugs,

Fiona
xxxxx

This story makes me want to cry, god only knows what you must be going through! The only consolation you have is the dog is still living and will be happy after some time for adjustment. I have children and dogs but sometimes i which i prefer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Below is the 1991 dangerous dogs act started at section 2, I omited section 1 because that deals with Pit Bull Types and Tosas only.

A dog does not need to bite to be put to sleep,nor does it have to be a huiman it bites, what if it runs in the road and causes an accident...? etc, etc

My last Dobe was responsible for an arrest and appx 10 min detention of 3 muggers on the top deck of a London Bus in 1989, there was a conviction, even so I would NEVER again attempt that, even with a highly trained dog like him he might still fall foul of the 1991 act if there was a conviction.

2.—(1) If it appears to the Secretary of State that dogs of any type to which section 1 above does not apply present a serious danger to the public he may by order impose in relation to dogs of that type restrictions corresponding, with such modifications, if any, as he thinks appropriate, to all or any of those in subsection (2)(d) and (e) of that section.

(2) An order under this section may provide for exceptions from any restriction imposed by the order in such cases and subject to compliance with such conditions as are specified in the order.

(3) An order under this section may contain such supplementary or transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks necessary or expedient and may create offences punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or both.

(4) In determining whether to make an order under this section in relation to dogs of any type and, if so, what the provisions of the order should be, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons or bodies as appear to him to have relevant knowledge or experience, including a body concerned with animal welfare, a body concerned with veterinary science and practice and a body concerned with breeds of dogs.

(5) The power to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Keeping dogs under proper control.

3.—(1) If a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place—
(a) the owner; and
(b) if different, the person for the time being 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 this subsection.

(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 [1871 c. 56.] Dogs 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 [1989 c. 30.] Dangerous 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.
Destruction and disqualification orders.

4.—(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 1 or 3(1) or (3) above or of an offence under an order made under section 2 above the court—
(a) may order the destruction of any dog in respect of which the offence was committed and shall do so in the case of an offence under section 1 or an aggravated offence under section 3(1) or (3) above; and
(b) may order the offender to be disqualified, for such period as the court thinks fit, for having custody of a dog.
(2) Where a court makes an order under subsection (1)(a) above for the destruction of a dog owned by a person other than the offender, then, unless the order is one that the court is required to make, the owner may appeal to the Crown Court against the order.

(3) A dog shall not be destroyed pursuant to an order under subsection (1)(a) above—
(a) until the end of the period for giving notice of appeal against the conviction or, where the order was not one which the court was required to make, against the order; and
(b) if notice of appeal is given within that period, until the appeal is determined or withdrawn,
unless the offender and, in a case to which subsection (2) above applies, the owner of the dog give notice to the court that made the order that there is to be no appeal.

(4) Where a court makes an order under subsection (1)(a) above it may—
(a) appoint a person to undertake the destruction of the dog and require any person having custody of it to deliver it up for that purpose; and
(b) order the offender to pay such sum as the court may determine to be the reasonable expenses of destroying the dog and of keeping it pending its destruction.
(5) Any sum ordered to be paid under subsection (4)(b) above shall be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were a fine imposed on conviction.

(6) Any person who is disqualified for having custody of a dog by virtue of an order under subsection (1)(b) above may, at any time after the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the order, apply to the court that made it (or a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as that court) for a direction terminating the disqualification.

(7) On an application under subsection (6) above the court may—
(a) having regard to the applicant's character, his conduct since the disqualification was imposed and any other circumstances of the case, grant or refuse the application; and
(b) order the applicant to pay all or any part of the costs of the application;
and where an application in respect of an order is refused no further application in respect of that order shall be entertained if made before the end of the period of one year beginning with the date of the refusal.

(8) Any person who—
(a) has custody of a dog in contravention of an order under subsection (1)(b) above; or
(b) fails to comply with a requirement imposed on him under subsection (4)(a) above,
is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(9) In the application of this section to Scotland—
(a) in subsection (2) for the words "Crown Court against the order" there shall be substituted the words "High Court of Justiciary against the order within the period of seven days beginning with the date of the order"
(b) for subsection (3)(a) there shall be substituted—
" (a) until the end of the period of seven days beginning with the date of the order"
;
(c) for subsection (5) there shall be substituted—
"(5) Section 411 of the [1975 c. 21.] Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall apply in relation to the recovery of sums ordered to be paid under subsection (4)(b) above as it applies to fines ordered to be recovered by civil diligence in pursuance of Part II of that Act."
; and
(d) in subsection (6) the words "(or a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as that court)" shall be omitted.

Seizure, entry of premises and evidence.

5.—(1) A constable or an officer of a local authority authorised by it to exercise the powers conferred by this subsection may seize—
(a) any dog which appears to him to be a dog to which section 1 above applies and which is in a public place—
(i) after the time when possession or custody of it has become unlawful by virtue of that section; or
(ii) before that time, without being muzzled and kept on a lead;
(b) any dog in a public place which appears to him to be a dog to which an order under section 2 above applies and in respect of which an offence against the order has been or is being committed; and
(c) any dog in a public place (whether or not one to which that section or such an order applies) which appears to him to be dangerously out of control.
(2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff is satisfied by evidence on oath, that there are reasonable grounds for believing—
(a) that an offence under any provision of this Act or of an order under section 2 above is being or has been committed; or
(b) that evidence of the commission of any such offence is to be found,
on any premises he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter those premises (using such force as is reasonably necessary) and to search them and seize any dog or other thing found there which is evidence of the commission of such an offence.

(3) A warrant issued under this section in Scotland shall be authority for opening lockfast places and may authorise persons named in the warrant to accompany a constable who is executing it.

(4) Where a dog is seized under subsection (1) or (2) above and it appears to a justice of the peace, or in Scotland a justice of the peace or sheriff, that no person has been or is to be prosecuted for an offence under this Act or an order under section 2 above in respect of that dog (whether because the owner cannot be found or for any other reason) he may order the destruction of the dog and shall do so if it is one to which section 1 above applies.

(5) If in any proceedings it is alleged by the prosecution that a dog is one to which section 1 or an order under section 2 above applies it shall be presumed that it is such a dog unless the contrary is shown by the accused by such evidence as the court considers sufficient; and the accused shall not be permitted to adduce such evidence unless he has given the prosecution notice of his intention to do so not later than the fourteenth day before that on which the evidence is to be adduced.
Dogs owned by young persons.

6. Where a dog is owned by a person who is less than sixteen years old any reference to its owner in section 1(2)(d) or (e) or 3 above shall include a reference to the head of the household, if any, of which that person is a member or, in Scotland, to the person who has his actual care and control.
Muzzling and leads.

7.—(1) In this Act—
(a) references to a dog being muzzled are to its being securely fitted with a muzzle sufficient to prevent it biting any person; and
(b) references to its being kept on a lead are to its being securely held on a lead by a person who is not less than sixteen years old.
(2) If the Secretary of State thinks it desirable to do so he may by order prescribe the kind of muzzle or lead to be used for the purpose of complying, in the case of a dog of any type, with section 1 or an order under section 2 above; and if a muzzle or lead of a particular kind is for the time being prescribed in relation to any type of dog the references in subsection (1) above to a muzzle or lead shall, in relation to any dog of that type, be construed as references to a muzzle or lead of that kind.

(3) The power to make an order under subsection (2) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
Power to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland.

8. An Order in Council under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the [1974 c. 28.] Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes corresponding to the purposes of this Act—
(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.

Expenses.

9. Any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of this Act shall be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
Short title, interpretation, commencement and extent.

10.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

(2) In this Act—
"advertisement" includes any means of bringing a matter to the attention of the public and "advertise" shall be construed accordingly;
"public place" means any street, road or other place (whether or not enclosed) to which the public have or are permitted to have access whether for payment or otherwise and includes the common parts of a building containing two or more separate dwellings.
(3) For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.

(4) Except for section 8, this Act shall not come into force until such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by an order made by statutory instrument and different days may be appointed for different provisions or different purposes.

(5) Except for section 8, this Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.

I have just come back from my travels around Scotland and catching up on the postings, can I just say that I am so very sorry for all that you and your poor woof have been through? Sounds like your so called victim has been got at too. Some bright spark has wound him up to do what he has done?

I hope that you and your family will soon be able to move on though must be so hard with your woof not living with you now.

Julieann

does anyone think that there would have been this horror from the council had the dog been apoodle,of course not society only picks on rottweilers and pit bull,i feel your pain

In this week's Dog World a poodle has been the subject of a control order!

Christine

theres been westies and yorkies met the same treatment, it depends on someone complaining about the ATTACK!!, its probably less embarrasing to say its a rott or whatever, -would many say theyd been attacked by a yorkie,

i would not let on if a yorkie attacked me which has happened,i accept your point of view,do you know about westies as id like one

Well I have to say the most agressive dog I have ever met and rehomed!! was indeed a Yorkshire Terrier. He was a real psycho at times .. but perfectly mannered and loving at others. We thought we would have to have him put to sleep as nobody could handle him in his psycho moments (even I was scared of him then!) ... happily however the woman who looked after him at the kennels couldn't bear to part with him and she kept him where he lived very happily. Having seen him at his worst though, I would fully understand someone taking out a case on him under the dangerous dogs act ... but he was never allowed to be out of control with his new family!

Seem to remember a Gt Dane being given a distruction order because when running free he bumped into a lady (probably didn't see her) and she broke a toe as she stumpled. And some others who barked and 'frightened' kids who were running sticks up and down the dogs garden fence. If the law is not silly in the first place then those who impose it make sure they make it even more stupid. JackieH

Hi Chloe - sending best wishes to you all for what must be a terrible time.
My thoughts would be - who actually has made the decision to name your dog as dangerous and who has told you that your dog must be muzzled/not allowed out & stuff - I mean who enforces that? What happened to inocent until proven guilty? I know that dangerous dogs are tried at Magistrates courts but the action is actually bought about by the council.(Magistrates/Police are also the only ones able to enforce the laws on neutering etc and not the council. They would have to re aply to the court if they felt the law was not being adhered to - or so I beleive) It would be interesting to see what medical evidence there is since it was not reported for several weeks surely the doctor at the time could not have thought that the injury was that detremental to the boy. I think is is appalling that you and your dog have been judged before any real consultaion has been made with you. I hope that Mr Cooper can help you - It all seems far to one sided to me. Keep us up to date with it all.
Best wishes
Sharon