Lord De Mauley has laid a Statutory Instrument before parliament which will bring about devastating changes to the way the exemption process works for dogs deemed type under Section One of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). If these changes are not amended thousands of dogs will be destroyed. Statutory Instruments are not subject to any required consultation and will become law unless annulled. This change is due to come into force on 3rd March 2015.

 

Background

 

 The purpose of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is to protect the public from dogs that are dangerous. In order for a dog to be exempted it has to found by a court of law to present no danger to the public. If a dog is deemed to present a danger, it MUST be destroyed and therefore the provisions of the Exemption Schemes Order ONLY applies to dogs that have been proven to be safe. 

 

 

The present situation.

 

At present providing the dog in question is not a danger to the public the Court can make an order that is contingent on the dog being exempted within a statutory period which can be extended by a court. There is no mandatory destruction order as the court has discretion, This discretion was introduced in 1997 as it was generally accepted as draconian that a dog should be destroyed for its appearance. Many such dogs are family pets and cross breeds.

 

The owner or person in charge must comply with conditions once exempted, for example the dog must be on a lead and muzzle at all times, live in secure premises so that it cannot escape, There are a number of prerequisites.

Under the law since 2014, the court must also consider if the owner is a fit and proper person.

 

Once a dog is exempted, the premises will be checked by the police and or Defra. . However, should that named person be unable to have the dog another can apply to be the keeper of the dog or the dog can be returned to the owner. Any additional change of keeper will be subject to the same restrictions and the police and or Defra will have a property check to ensure the premises are secure.

 

There is no restriction on there being any change of keeper after the dog has been exempted to the owner or keeper.

 

Forthcoming Changes

 

Now, by virtue of this Statutory Instrument, someone other than the person on the exemption certificate can ONLY apply to be substituted if the person named on the exemption as the owner or person in charge either dies or is seriously ill and is rendered unable to continue to be in charge of the dog.

 

The implications of this are that if a couple divorce and each separate and cannot house the dog in their present accommodation, the dog will, by the wording of this S. I have to be destroyed, Nobody else can apply to be keeper or in charge of the dog as the previous person is neither dead nor seriously ill. Similarly if someone has to go abroad to tend to a sick relative for more than 30 days, the dog will die, if a spouse is posted abroad within the Armed Forces their Spouse could not become the person in charge as they are neither dead, nor seriously ill leading to the death of the dog. This seems to be the case even where the dog is a family pet and the person named on the exemption certificate goes away, they will not be able to leave their beloved pet with the family.

 

This is not written in the statute. The purpose of the amendment Act 1997 was to prevent dogs proven to be no danger in being destroyed.

  

This statutory instrument therefore is changing the law, and is extremely harsh.

 

Proposal.

This part of the Exemption Certificate should therefore be removed from the statutory instrument. Instead the position could either be left as it is whereby the proposed new applicant is assessed by the police or defra as is the case now,  OR , they could replace it with a condition that any proposed new applicant should attend a court and make the application before the Justices. In that way the Court can oversee who the substituted person in charge is going to be and it can be at the Applicant’s expense.

 

Either way there is NO reasonable grounds for making these changes by secondary legislation that will result in such drastic measures when  present legislation can deal with the issues ensuring public safety, and there are alternative measures which would not result in a disproportionate outcome.

 

Further draconian change

In Article 10[1][a] the 30 days permitted for the dog to live in a different address has now been restricted to 30 days in a year. Before this it was 30 days at a time. Now this has been changed to any 30 days in a 12 month period. A person who has need to have repeated hospitalisation or even a broken leg which can require months of disability would end up with their dog being destroyed.

 

Proposal

The 30 day in one year should be deleted. If it is believed necessary then if someone is away for more than 30 days they can notify the police and Defra of the arrangements in the interim. There should be also inserted, ‘ unless the dog remains at home with the family.’ Members of one family should be able to be added to the exemption certificate. The family should not be penalised by losing their pet if one member has to go away to be able to pay the rent or mortgage and feed and clothe the family.

 

 

 

The statute was in order to protect the public from dogs that were a danger to them. If the dog is anywhere else for 30 days Defra could be notified and they can check this.

 

Superfluous burden to prove dog is not dangerous again.

 

Finally, In Article 15[2] the Court are instructed that they MUST consider the temperament of the dog when determining the suitability of the Applicant in a substitution of a person in charge. In order to first be exempted the dog has already been proven in a court to pose no danger to the public. Whilst the person in charge may change, the dog is always the same thus a further assessment of the temperament of the same dog is unnecessary. This additional requirement within the exemption procedure potentially imposes additional costs and delay on an application where the burden has already been discharged on behalf of the dog as a pre- requisite to the exemption certificate originally being issued.At this stage the dog is already on a muzzle and lead in public with all of the other mandatory requirements of the exemption scheme having been complied with. 

 The Courts should have discretion to make such decisions as to where the dog may live and whether an applicant is a fit and proper person. This is a dog that has already been subject to a judicial decision that it is not a danger to the public. The proposed changes, as stated here are fair, proportionate and ensure public safety. We urge Lord De Mauley to make this changes and annul or amend as suggested, the previous Statutory Instrument The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes

(England and Wales) Order 2015