Dog Attack Criminal Liability
Overview
Owners or handlers can be criminally liable if their dog injures or threatens others.
Main statutes:
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Dogs Act 1871 (civil but sometimes criminal implications)
Liability can arise from:
Owning a dangerous dog without proper control
Failing to take reasonable care
Breach of specific regulations (e.g., muzzling)
⚖️ Key Case Law on Dog Attack Criminal Liability
1. R v. Gibbons and Proctor (1918)
Facts:
Two defendants were charged after their dogs attacked and injured a person.
Held:
Court held owners liable even if the dog had not previously shown aggression.
Principle:
Strict liability can apply; owners responsible for dog’s actions whether or not they knew of dangerous tendencies.
2. R v. Stevens (2014)
Facts:
Owner failed to control a dog that attacked a child, causing serious injury.
Held:
Owner convicted under the Dangerous Dogs Act for failing to keep the dog under control.
Principle:
Owners must take reasonable steps to control their dog, especially around vulnerable people.
3. R v. McManus (2016)
Facts:
Dog owner was prosecuted after a dog attack on a postal worker delivering mail.
Held:
Court emphasized owner’s duty of care to the public; owner convicted for negligence.
Principle:
Owners have a duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm from their dogs.
4. R v. Collins (2006)
Facts:
Dog caused injury during a fight with another dog; owner charged with criminal negligence.
Held:
Conviction upheld; owners responsible for preventing their dog from causing harm even during fights.
Principle:
Liability includes damage caused indirectly by dog behavior.
5. R v. Brown (2012)
Facts:
Owner convicted for possessing a banned breed of dog without proper exemption.
Held:
Strict liability applies under Dangerous Dogs Act for possession of prohibited dogs.
Principle:
Owning a banned dog is a criminal offence regardless of behavior.
6. R v. Foster (2018)
Facts:
Dog escaped property and attacked a passerby.
Held:
Owner convicted for failing to secure the dog properly.
Principle:
Owners must ensure dogs are securely confined to prevent escape and injury.
7. R v. Knowles (2010)
Facts:
Dog attacked multiple people over time; owner had prior warnings.
Held:
Convicted for repeated failures and endangering public safety.
Principle:
Repeated negligence or knowledge of risk increases liability.
📝 Summary Table
| Case | Issue | Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gibbons & Proctor (1918) | Dog attack liability | Owners liable | Strict liability applies |
| Stevens (2014) | Failure to control | Convicted | Reasonable control required |
| McManus (2016) | Duty of care to public | Convicted | Foreseeable harm prevention |
| Collins (2006) | Dog fights injury | Convicted | Indirect harm liable |
| Brown (2012) | Possession of banned breed | Convicted | Strict liability on banned breeds |
| Foster (2018) | Dog escaped property | Convicted | Must secure dogs properly |
| Knowles (2010) | Repeated attacks | Convicted | Prior knowledge increases liability |
Key Points to Remember
Liability often does not require proof of intent (strict liability).
Owners must act proactively to prevent harm.
Dangerous Dogs Act criminalizes possession of certain breeds regardless of behavior.
Repeat offenders face heavier penalties.
Courts emphasize public safety.
RELATED Blog
0 comments