The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 must be strengthened to protect other dogs and the public

Recent tragic and disturbing incidents involving dog-on-dog attacks highlight the urgent need to strengthen the UK’s Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

One such case in Lancashire underlines how the current legal framework is not always sufficient to protect the public nor other dogs, and reinforces the argument for tougher, clearer and more robust legislation.

In Darwen, an unleashed, unmuzzled pocket bully dog attacked Benji, a small Lhasa Apso breed therapy dog belonging to Karen Hawthornwaite. The entire incident was captured on CCTV – clearly showing the unmuzzled, unleashed, out of control XL bully hybrid mauling the small lap dog breed on Karen’s own property.

Karen’s dog Benji suffered very serious injuries, including having its leg amputated, and ultimately had to be put to sleep. It was an agonising experience for Karen and her whole family.

The attacking dog was off‑lead, unmuzzled, out of control and the owner had no effective control of it. Despite reporting the incident to the police, Karen was informed that the attack did not meet the Dangerous Dogs Act because Benji is not a classified guide dog. Currently, only guide dogs are protected in dog-on-dog attacks under the Dangerous Dogs Act. Karen was naturally distraught knowing that her son’s beloved therapy dog died – and no one was to be held accountable. To add insult to injury, the dog responsible for Benji’s death still lives on the same street as Karen. This has left Karen suffering from anxiety and depression and fearful for her and others' safety – knowing that the dog that killed her beloved Benji is still living nearby.

Karen is therefore campaigning for the Dangerous Dogs Act to be strengthened so that no one else has to go through the heartbreak and injustice she has faced. She wants all dogs seriously harmed or killed by another dog to be taken seriously, regardless of whether they are guide dogs or not.

Karen also believes that by not taking a dog attacking and killing another dog seriously, it puts future human life at risk. If a dog has a tendency to attack and kill a dog – who will be next, another dog… a child?

This incident raises multiple concerns about how the DDA is applied, enforced and whether the risk posed by certain dogs is being adequately addressed. Key reasons for strengthening the Act include:

Extend dog-on-dog attack criteria so that all dog victims protected

All dogs seriously harmed or killed by another dog must be taken seriously, regardless of whether they are guide dogs or not.

Gaps in breed/type regulation
The current DDA explicitly prohibits certain named breeds (e.g., the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro) and additional breed‑types (such as the XL Bully) have recently been added. But as the Darwen incident shows, other types — such as “pocket bully” variants — may fall into grey areas, allowing dangerous dogs to evade the full force of the law. Strengthening the legislation would allow for a broader and clearer definition of what constitutes a high-risk dog and ensure that breed‑type loopholes are closed.

More stringent controls on ownership and behaviour
The incident in Darwen showed that the dog was off‑lead, unmuzzled, and the owner lacked effective control. This illustrates that even where the breed may be regulated, enforcement of control measures (lead, muzzle, neuter, microchip) can be lacking. There is a case for requiring additional preventative controls — such as mandatory registration, compulsory secure containment, regular inspections of owners of high-risk dogs, and stronger penalties for breaches.

Deterrence and enforcement effectiveness
The current Act includes offences such as allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control, and owning a prohibited breed without an exemption. Yet, as the Darwen example reveals, some owners may not face sufficient early sanctions or may continue to keep dogs despite previous incidents until irreversible harm occurs. Enhancing the Act could increase penalties, improve seizure powers, expedite judicial processes for potentially dangerous dogs, and reduce the burden on victims having to chase legal redress.