New Penalties for Dog Attacks on People and Horses

J

Judgemental

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2010
Messages
1,603
Location
The Internet makes one's location irrelevant
Visit site
New penalties under the changes

➤ Up to 14 years’ imprisonment if a person dies as a result of a dog attack (the current maximum for aggravated dog attacks is currently 2 years)

➤ 5 years’ imprisonment if a person is injured by a dog attack

➤ Attacks on private property will now be covered — including those at livery yards

Read more at http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/dog-attack-laws-beefed/#spKK9Wdvi7dDPpV5.99

You are fully entitled to Victim Compensation
 
About time they ramped it up but what penalty is there for a dog attack on a horse other than trying to get compensation? I think they need to put penalties in place for it (unless there already is and I'm being really thick!).

Hopefully dog owners will start to take more notice
 
Bit different but i had a dog come in to our garden, gate left open for 10 mins for my arrival on a busy lane. Dog attacked and killed one of my hens. I arrived just in time to catch dog the dog at it. Never even received an apology. Tracked down owner and basically told 'told tough'. I did arrive to prevent further mayhem.
 
Probably I seem cruel, but I want to see some of these penalties applied in my country too
Last year, a little boy aged 3 dies, due to several wounds caused by stray dogs. The media talked about this case for one month, all possible authorities argued that the problem called stray dogs will be solved, but time passed and no obvious result on the horizon
 
What about dog on dog attacks? There is a dog up the yard that keeps going for mine, they now have to have her on a lead when mine is up as she will just launch at his throat for no reason. With the others she is fine.
 
I agree for dog attacks in public spaces should have bigger penalties.

But the idea that trespassers can then sue for injury when they weren't supposed to be there is a little bit scary. What if you have a secure area for your dogs but then someone trespasses into there?
 
I totally agree charmin surely if some stranger wanders into my garden while dog is out and gets bitten then myself and my dog should not be at risk of anything. If you enter private property unless it's on a public footpath it should be by invite only and thus any dog should be removed or under the owners control not roaming in their own land.
 
So does that mean that my dogs cannot be loose in my garden in case someone wanders in uninvited ?
It's a bit worrying that it may soon be impossible to ever let a dog off a lead. I would like to see more education not only about responsible dog ownership but also teaching people how not to alarm or excite dogs they meet when out in public.
 
Charmin said:
But the idea that trespassers can then sue for injury when they weren't supposed to be there is a little bit scary. What if you have a secure area for your dogs but then someone trespasses into there?
Click to expand...

I think you will find that attacks on trespassers on private property are excluded from the act, it is only intended to apply on private property to people that have a legitimate reason to be there (ie visitors, postman, milkman etc).
 
Lizzie66 said:
I think you will find that attacks on trespassers on private property are excluded from the act, it is only intended to apply on private property to people that have a legitimate reason to be there (ie visitors, postman, milkman etc).
Click to expand...

The consultation about the amendments to the law did suggest that you wouldn't be prosecuted if a trespassers entered a secure area ie a fenced garden with 5ft fences and got bitten but the actual law is different - you can be prosecuted, the only exception is if someone enters your house uninvited.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._dogs_provisions_updated_for_Lords_Report.pdf

I supported the original plan to update the law - people should have to control their dogs in more 'public' areas of their property or if they have invited visitors in but to be held responsible if some prat scales my 6ft fence and bypasses my locked gate with a sign saying 'Caution Loose Dogs'?

As it happens I no longer have my fierce, guarding, liable to savage uninvited visitors 7kg JRT due to old age and my current dog would greet all with a loud yap as he ran off to hide but FGS why am I expected to protect people from their own stupidity?

The other concern is that it is an offence now to have a dog that causes fear in someone - it doesn't have to actually touch them, just make them scared - but as there are a lot of people who are genuinely dog phobic, does that mean that any dog in their vicinity is breaking the law?
 
Lizzie66 said:
I think you will find that attacks on trespassers on private property are excluded from the act, it is only intended to apply on private property to people that have a legitimate reason to be there (ie visitors, postman, milkman etc).
Click to expand...

That's interesting, and a possible retrograde step, if what you say is correct. The Law has always taken the view that should a burglar, or anyone with criminal intent, break in to your home, they are entitled to the protection of the law. It's long been my argument that those who are bent on crime, accept the penalties, what ever they are. I only hope that you're correct, but in our cumfy and lovely and squishy world, I doubt that you are, sadly!

Alec.
 
As Charmin says it will need a period of bedding down in the courts, and that will set precendents for how it is policed. I doubt a burglar who got bitten would have many rights, but really the postman should be safe.
They should castrate the owners of badly trained, vicious dogs, that would soon make them rethink!
 
I would love to know what the penalty is for engaging in illegal dog fighting... does anyone know? I think we'd see a bit less of a problem if it was stomped on, hard.
 
Lizzie66 said:
I think you will find that attacks on trespassers on private property are excluded from the act, it is only intended to apply on private property to people that have a legitimate reason to be there (ie visitors, postman, milkman etc).
Click to expand...

In the UK I think the owner/occupier has a duty of care even towards trespassers.

So, man traps ARE illegal, even ones that come on four legs! What happens when that trespasser is a child who failed to read the notice and has climbed the fence?

I am not anti-dog. I have two German shepherds myself. But a dog can be trained to bark at trespassers without attacking. The problem is that dog training here in the UK is a lost art.
 
Dry Rot said:
In the UK I think the owner/occupier has a duty of care even towards trespassers.
Click to expand...

True, but you are entitled to use reasonable force to protect yourself. Therefore on this basis if someone breaks in and you are in fear for your safety you would be entitled to use your dog as a deterrent to protect yourself from harm.
 
Slightlyconfused said:
What about dog on dog attacks? There is a dog up the yard that keeps going for mine, they now have to have her on a lead when mine is up as she will just launch at his throat for no reason. With the others she is fine.
Click to expand...

Reading your post, I remembered that some dog owners organize illegal fights, for fun, for money or maybe for both reason
Although they are forbidden, I know for sure that even in my little down, during a specific day, at night, those cruel fights are organized. I personally announced police, but nothing has changed
 
...... and so are we to assume the same penalties for attacks on other dogs, too?

Would anyone care to read the thread in AAD which clearly shows how dogs within the care, of the rspca killed another dog which was also in the 'care' of the rspca, and had been previously 'seized'?

When those who have acquired, or achieved by devious bent, the lofty position of being able to bring about prosecution, are themselves found wanting and presumably liable, who is there to prosecute the prosecutor? It's a thought, isn't it?

Alec.
 
Last edited:
Alec Swan said:
...... and so are we to assume the same penalties for attacks on other dogs, too?

Would anyone care to read the thread in AAD which clearly shows how dogs within the care, of the rspca killed another dog which was also in the 'care' of the rspca, and had been previously 'seized'?

When those who have acquired, or achieved by devious bent, the lofty position of being able to bring about prosecution, are themselves found wanting and presumably liable, who is there to prosecute the prosecutor? It's a thought, isn't it?

Alec.
Click to expand...
Assuming that this is what happened, its terribly sad for the dog and quite rightly should be investigated. I'd be interested to know the full facts of the case. If, perhaps, the kennel was under the impression the dogs were family pets, keeping them together may have been a humane management decision. If, however, the dogs were, for arguments sake, kept as caged fighting dogs and the staff were unaware of this, the resulting death could not have been forseen. It's a bit early to be judge and jury without both sides of the story.
 
The dog which was killed was killed by dogs which were also 'in care', and were unknown to the victim. They came from separate sources. It was nothing to do with it being a 'humane management decision', it was gross mismanagement.

By the rspca's own admission, the terrier was killed by 3 GSDs. Dogs which were also in care. The fact that the dogs 'may' have had history is not a let out for mismanagement. No one running a kennel, with unknown dogs with unknown history would put 3 GSDs together with a terrier. Had they not been together, then the terrier wouldn't have been killed, sorry 'Found dead'. For anyone to conclude that it was anything other than gross mismanagement, brought about by either intent or incompetence, would have to ignore the facts.

Alec.
 
Alec Swan said:
The dog which was killed was killed by dogs which were also 'in care', and were unknown to the victim. They came from separate sources. It was nothing to do with it being a 'humane management decision', it was gross mismanagement.

By the rspca's own admission, the terrier was killed by 3 GSDs. Dogs which were also in care. The fact that the dogs 'may' have had history is not a let out for mismanagement. No one running a kennel, with unknown dogs with unknown history would put 3 GSDs together with a terrier. Had they not been together, then the terrier wouldn't have been killed, sorry 'Found dead'. For anyone to conclude that it was anything other than gross mismanagement, brought about by either intent or incompetence, would have to ignore the facts.

Alec.
Click to expand...

What breed were the OP's nine dogs ? It is difficult to know what the circumstances were when the P is so reticent in giving us the full facts.
Do you know anyone whose farm dog has been seized because it dispatched a rat or rabbit ? This all seems very odd.
 
Charmin said:
It's going to be interesting to see how it's applied by judges.
Click to expand...

Well it seems that in the case of the dog that killed the old man in his own garden in Liverpool has got the owners a paltry 12 months in prison, so they will likely be out in 6 or much less. He could have given them a maximum of 2 years - so why didn't he? The dog RIPPED HIS ARM OFF ffs while he was alive. Apparently that wasn't bad enough. The fact that the dog was starving and dehydrated by the owners too didn't seem to count for anything. These judges need to wake up and come and live in the real world. I bet it would have been different if it was the judge's granddaughter which had her throat ripped out.

Absolutely disgusting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top