Allcock, T. and Campbell, M.L., 2021. The UK Dangerous Dogs Act: Improved, but legally and ethically flawed. Veterinary Record, 189(3), pp.no-no.

On the 18th May 1991 a 6 year old girl was "savaged" by a Pit Bull Terrier. In less than a day the Dangerous Dogs Act (1991) had been passed through parliament. In subsequent years many amendments have been made, but to what end? It remains one of the most controversial pieces of legislation in UK history, predominantly because it targets specific breeds.

Sections of the DDA

Section 1: Breed Specific Legislation. 

Making it illegal to own any breed falling under this category - Pit Bull Terriers, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa and Dogo Argentino. Any dog that was registered must be on a lead and muzzled when in public. 

Section 2: allows for additional breed types to be added to the BSL, but this has never been used. 

Section 3: Considers dogs who are involved in a dangerous event. It is an offence for a dog to be "out of control in public" and an aggravated offence if a person or assistance dog is injured. Dogs who attack an intruder in their home are exempted.

Section 4: Discusses sentences for dogs that are involved if an offence is committed under section 1 or 3. This includes Destruction Orders, Contingent Destruction Orders and how to apply these.

Section 5: Discusses evidence involved in court cases. Anyone authorised to exercise powers under the DDA can seize a dog that appears to them to which section 1 applies. 

It also states that this will be presumed to be true unless the contrary is shown by the accused. This is known as the act’s reversed burden of proof.

Criticism of the DDA

• Despite there being 4 breed types covered in Section 1 the legislation is almost exclusively applied to the Pit Bull Terrier in practise.
• Professionals and public have trouble identifying the Pit Bull Terrier.
• There has been no reduction statistically of dog bites, with the majority of bites being from GSD's and Mixed Breeds. 
• BSL appears to lack scientific credibility with banned breeds scoring equally well in temperament testing as other breeds.

Aims

1. ’Does the DDA achieve what it is intended to achieve?’ Legal analysis focused on the Act’s stated objectives of improving public safety, but also on efforts to balance this with animal welfare.

2. ’Are the objectives of the DDA the correct objec- tives?’ Ethical analysis focused on the individual stakeholders, their conflicting needs and the ethics of prioritising the interests of some stakeholders above others.

Data and Methods

Legislation and cases were analysed, together with any relevant context, to identify places where the law fell short, or it was felt that the intended meaning of the legislation didn’t match what was occurring in practice.

To answer question two, ’are the objectives of the DDA correct?’, ethical analysis was undertaken using the principlism approach. This uses the application of four principles: respect for autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence and justice. Each principle is considered essential for deciding if an action is ethical, and in combination encompass most other ethical considerations of relevance.

Results

Q1

Section 1 Cases:

• 75% of cases where dogs were found to be Pit Bulls were destroyed.
• Banned breeds are no more likely to be involved in bite incidents than others.
• If we argue that banned breeds are inherently a threat to public safety it can be said that the act is doing what it intends with the above statistic.
• Many dogs were euthanised for trivial breaches of their contingent destruction orders.
• • A brief lapse in insurance
  • being in a car with no muzzle
  • owner emigration without the dog
  • a dog being found straying.

While the DDA was, strictly speaking, fulfilling its own objectives by ordering the destruction of dogs which had broken their CDOs, it seems difficult to argue that these cases represented a genuine threat to people. It is therefore unclear that euthanising these dogs fulfilled the act’s aim of protecting public safety.

Section 3 Cases:

• When a dog attacked a child, paramedic, or member of the public their destruction ensured public safety in all cases. 
• CDOs may not have been used by the courts in a manner consistent with the fulfilment of the act’s objectives. 
• Some cases involving attacks on children (2014), a dog biting someone in the street (2010) and a dog attacking several other dogs (2011), resulted in CDOs rather than destruction, as they were considered ‘one off’ instances.

The DDA’s protection of public safety was improved by an amendment to make it enforceable in private locations in 2014. This deficiency risked the dogs involved being able to attack again, which contradicted the act’s stated objectives.

Section 1 & 3 Cases:

Where a banned breed used aggression destruction was always the outcome.

Q2

Section 1 Cases:

Comparing the impact of cases in which a banned breed of dog has been destroyed - having shown no signs of aggression - against the four principles raises serious questions about whether the objectives of the DDA are correct.

One study showed that this method had no impact on the number of dog bites recorded, at all. Indicating that public safety is not improved.

Is justice served and the outcome fair?

"In the context of this research, a fair outcome is one in which (a) dogs to whom the same circumstances apply are treated equally under the law and (b) the dogs’ impact (positive or negative) on their own interests, those of the owner and those of the public are balanced; acknowledging that public safety is to be prioritised, within reason. Given that these dogs are being destroyed for the way they look (i.e. being a banned breed) and haven’t been found to be dangerous, the potential negative impact on the public appears minimal. Furthermore, they are clearly not being treated equally to other breeds, despite the fact that any risk that banned breed dogs might pose to the public has consistently been shown to be no different from that posed by other breeds."

Where contingent destruction orders are issued it is hard to asses their fairness. There are failings across section 1 of the act and for this reason the authors believe it best to remove it altogether.

Section 3 cases: 

Under section 3 it is easier to justify a dog's destruction or a contingent destruction order. To the authors’ knowledge, no study has been conducted into whether dogs which have bitten before are more likely to do so again. This would be preferable to ensure the policy is having the assumed benefits on public safety.

A dog found to be dangerously out of control being destroyed removes the risk of any further danger to the public. Similarly muzzling a dog with a prior history of aggression or biting appears proportionate and demonstrably improves public safety.

If muzzling dogs in this situation is consistently applied then fairness is maintained.

Section 1 & 3 cases: 

All Section 1 and 3 cases analysed resulted in the dog’s destruction: no CDOs were used as they were with non-banned breeds.

This demonstrates that the legal system discriminates against these banned breeds because of section 1. 

Conclusions

there are currently two key areas where improvements should be made:

• The reversed burden of proof of breed identification contained within the act should be amended to ensure that only those dogs intended to be regulated under the DDA are being affected. 
• Additionally, the change of ownership of a banned breed dog should be allowed for. 

We feel the only way to solve these completely is to remove Section 1 and the therein BSL in its entirety. No replacement would be required as the rest of the DDA is able to adequately deal with cases of canine aggression.