Dangerous Dogs Act bites rottweilers owners?
Couple facing court after rottweilers attacked postman
A couple whose rottweiler guard dogs allegedly almost tore off a postman's arm at their £1.5 million home are facing court in a landmark case.
I am interested in this case, because it was alleged my dog was dangerously out of control under the 1991 Act. The prosecution offered no evidence. Case dismissed. Then I am arrested again alleging public order offence, and not being in control of my dog under the 1871 Dogs Act.
"The strength of the 1871 Act is that as it is not part of the criminal law, it operates on a lower standard of proof and proceedings can be taken even when a criminal offence has not been committed. It provides a remedy in a wide range of circumstances for the destruction, or imposition of controls, on dangerous dogs. A particular advantage of the 1871 Act is the fact that it applies everywhere, even in and around a private house which is why it is particularly appropriate for action on behalf of people such as postmen and women who are regularly at risk from dogs in front gardens".
Why prosecute under the DDA 1991 trying to make a case fit the law, when a remedy is already available under the 1871 Dogs Act?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
1 comment:
There may be some dog owners though, John, who do not exercise the proper control in a public situation.
Post a Comment