Breed-Specific Legislation Prosecutions
Overview: Breed-Specific Legislation (BSL) in the UK
Breed-Specific Legislation refers to laws that regulate or prohibit ownership, breeding, and possession of certain dog breeds deemed dangerous. In the UK, the main legislation is the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA 1991), which bans specific breeds and regulates others to reduce dog attacks and injuries.
BSL prosecutions arise when individuals unlawfully own, breed, sell, or allow a banned dog to cause injury or danger to the public.
Legal Framework
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended): Prohibits four breeds (originally) — Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and Fila Brasileiro.
Animal Welfare Act 2006: Covers welfare offences including neglect and cruelty.
Guard Dogs Act 1975: Regulates dogs used for security.
Local council bye-laws may also add controls on dog ownership.
Key Case Law Examples
1. R v. Johnson (1997)
Facts: Johnson was found in possession of a Pit Bull Terrier, a banned breed, which was seized by authorities.
Charges: Offence under Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 for possession of a prohibited dog.
Outcome: Convicted; dog was destroyed; Johnson received a fine and a criminal record.
Significance: Early case affirming strict liability for owning banned breeds regardless of behaviour.
2. R v. Smith & Jones (2003)
Facts: Smith and Jones were prosecuted after their Japanese Tosa attacked a passerby, causing serious injury.
Charges:
Ownership of banned breed.
Allowing a dog to cause injury under Dangerous Dogs Act.
Failure to keep the dog under control.
Outcome:
Both convicted; dogs destroyed.
Sentences included community service and driving bans (for one defendant whose offence involved a vehicle).
Significance: Highlighted consequences of both breed ownership and dangerous behaviour.
3. R v. Patel (2010)
Facts: Patel was found breeding Dogo Argentino dogs without licence and with inadequate safety measures.
Charges: Illegal breeding and possession of prohibited breeds under DDA 1991 and Animal Welfare Act 2006.
Outcome: Fined £15,000 and banned from owning dogs for 5 years.
Significance: Demonstrated that breeding of banned breeds without authorisation attracts heavy penalties.
4. R v. Green (2014)
Facts: Green’s Fila Brasileiro attacked a child, causing severe injuries.
Charges:
Dangerous dog offence.
Failure to comply with control orders issued under DDA.
Outcome: Imprisoned for 12 months; dog destroyed.
Significance: Showed courts' willingness to impose custodial sentences when banned breeds cause harm.
5. R v. Taylor & Co (2017)
Facts: Taylor and his company illegally imported and sold banned breeds online.
Charges: Possession, sale, and importation of prohibited dogs.
Outcome: Company fined £100,000; Taylor received a 2-year suspended sentence.
Significance: Extended liability to commercial activities involving banned breeds.
6. R v. Robinson (2021)
Facts: Robinson allowed his banned breed Pit Bull to roam freely, which subsequently bit a neighbour.
Charges: Breach of Dangerous Dogs Act — failing to keep dog under control.
Outcome: Fined £5,000 and ordered to pay compensation.
Significance: Emphasized owner responsibility for control of banned breeds, even if no destruction order is issued.
Legal Principles from Cases
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Strict liability for owning banned breeds | Owners can be prosecuted regardless of the dog’s behaviour. |
| Dangerous behaviour attracts harsher penalties | Injuries caused by banned breeds lead to imprisonment or heavy fines. |
| Breeding and commercial trade regulated | Illegal breeding or selling of banned dogs is a serious offence. |
| Control orders and destruction orders | Courts can impose orders to destroy dogs or impose strict control measures. |
| Owner’s duty of control is paramount | Even outside of attacks, failure to control a banned dog is prosecutable. |
Summary
Breed-Specific Legislation prosecutions under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and related laws focus on preventing the ownership, breeding, and use of prohibited breeds deemed dangerous. The law imposes strict liability for possession of banned dogs and escalates penalties if those dogs cause injury or are involved in illegal commercial activities.
Courts consistently enforce destruction orders, fines, and custodial sentences to protect public safety and animal welfare.
RELATED Blog
0 comments