Man's best friend or dangerous dog?

Man's best friend or dangerous dog?

According to Wikipedia:

"The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is a piece of UK legislation that was introduced in response to various incidents of serious injury or death resulting from attacks by aggressive and uncontrolled dogs, particularly on children. These incidents received heavy tabloid attention, causing widespread public concern over the keeping of dangerous dogs and a resulting legislative response".

I think it is fair to say that the Act is more in keeping with politicians displaying knee-jerk reactions rather than employing their thought processes. Nevertheless, I have been charged under section 3(1):

"3 Keeping dogs under proper control

(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".

Section 10 provides an interpretation:

"10(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".

The key words here are "reasonable apprehension". For example, according to Wikipedia:

"In England and Wales, an assault consists of a person intentionally or recklessly causing another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence".

Therefore, it is the fear of (mental) rather than the actual physical contact which constitutes the offence. In this sense, it is a "thought crime".

Having the benefit of seeing how C*** W*****, the Park Ranger, behaves and having read his police statement, in my view, his apprehension is not reasonable. I suspect it is neurotic. If that is the case, then it is his problem and not mine.

However, there is another element to this whole affair. Another Park Ranger called Richard decided to start picking on me whilst I was walking my dog Rocky in Pearson Park in Hull. Eventually, I complained to the relevant council department and this Richard was the subject of a disciplinary hearing and received a reprimand. From that point on he left me alone. Shortly thereafter, two other Park Rangers, one of whom is C*** W*****, began picking on me. I find this to be too much of a coincidence. In prison it is common practice when a prisoner and a prison officer come into conflict for that prison officer to "mark his card", and then he finds that he is targeted by other prison officers for rough treatment.

It may be that I am not as responsible a dog owner as I could and/or should be. For example, even though animal charities may disagree about the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, "Both charities do agree that all dog owners should be responsible and keep their animals on leads or under close supervision in public places". I don't usually keep Rocky on his lead accept when near or crossing busy roads. Some may argue that if Rocky is walking about 50 yards away from me then that is not close supervision. However, the case may not rest on that at all. If I was the Crown Prosecution Service lawyer I might have doubts about the credibility of their star witness and the reliability of his evidence.