Law

Dog Criminal Law England & Wales

by

Withdraw a Certificate of Exemption

Issues in Removing a self-declared suspected XL Bull Breed dog from the register of the Index of dogs.

Government website on Ban on XL Bully dogs – GOV.UK

Withdraw a Certificate of Exemption

If you no longer think your dog is an XL Bully, you will be able to ask Defra to withdraw your certificate. Defra will provide more information about how to do this soon. Ban on XL Bully dogs – GOV.UK (accessed 11th Nov 2024)

It’s a criminal offence to own or possess an XL Bully dog in England and Wales (and Scotland) unless you have a valid ‘Certificate of Exemption’.

It’s also an offence to:

  • sell an XL Bully dog
  • abandon an XL Bully dog or let it stray
  • give away an XL Bully dog
  • breed or breed from an XL Bully dog
  • have an XL Bully in public without a lead and muzzle

Applications for a Certificate of Exemption to keep an XL Bully dog have closed. New exemptions can only be authorised by a court order.

From 1 February 2024, it is a criminal offence under Section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to be in possession of an XL Bully breed type without a valid Certificate of Exemption.

In Northern Ireland the legislation is totally different to England and Wales. And now (Scotland) In N.I as from 01st October 2024 new regulations were brought in prohibiting importing, breeding, selling and re-homing of XL bull breed type dogs.

In N.I from 01st February 2025 it will be illegal to own an XL Bull breed type dog without a ‘certificate of exemption’ being in force issued by the local authority in which the dog resides.

It is now only possible for a court to decide if your dog is a dog of ‘type’ or not. If a police officer or authorised person suspects or deems your dog to be as such you have to prove to a court that this is not the case, by having your dog independently assessed by an expert in such matters. If the police suspect your dog to be a banned breed dog, then you must prove to a court that the dog is not a dog of ‘type’ this is called a reverse burden of proof.

As the law stands at this time there does not appear to be a way of having a self-registered dog de-registered and removed from the register of Index of banned breed dogs without it being put before a court of magistrates. The problem is being able to put that information before the courts for them to decide on the matter.

Unfortunately, the government nor Defra has still not come up with a method or procedure to have such dogs removed from the index of dogs or how to get a case heard in front of the magistrates to have it removed from the Index of registered dogs.

The latest update from Defra is Withdraw a Certificate of Exemption

If you no longer think your dog is an XL Bully, you will be able to ask Defra to withdraw your certificate. Defra will provide more information about how to do this soon. Still no change December 2024

There are many owners who had registered their dogs in fear of them being seized and destroyed who now do not think or believe that their dog is a dog of ‘type’ having self-declared the dog as such and would like to have the dog removed from the register.

Because it is now laid down in legislation that to have possession of a suspected XL BULLY without it being registered as such with Defra, you commit an offence under section 1 DDA 1991 (as amended The DDA1991 (c.65) Article 2 Dangerous Dogs (Designated Types) (England & Wales) Order 2023 (S.I. 20223/1164)

There does not a appear to be certification process at this time to produce to the police or Defra to state that your dog has been deemed not to be of type (self-certificated) by a court should the courts make that decision on the evidence put before them.

If you have been taken to court since the ban came into being and a court has decided on the evidence presented to it that your dog is deemed to be a dog of ‘type’ (and ordered that for you to legally own the dog) the dog needs to registered with the Index of dogs under the strict conditions as laid down in law then you MUST comply with all the conditions at all times for the remainder of the dog’s life.

If the dog has been self-certificated as dog of ‘type’ then technically there will be no court order in place on your dog in which to commit an offence of breeching a court order or you are being in contempt of court as none has been made in respect of such dogs.

Failing to comply with the conditions of exemption is not a statutory offence. But by not doing so (complying) you do run the risk of having your dog seized by the police kept in detention up until a court date is fixed and then having to attend a court hearing whereby you could end up being convicted of owning an unregistered fighting dog if the courts deem your dog as such.

The courts do have the power to order the destruction of your dog unless the dog is shown not to be a danger to the public, OR if you are deemed NOT to be a fit and responsible person.

The legal advice being given at this time is. DO NOT BE HASTY to breech the conditions if you have registered your dog and it is legally registered. Bide your time until a definitive decision has been made by Defra (Government) and they have worked a way to have dogs removed from the register of exemption.

Last updated December 2024

By Colin Spender CFBA MCFBA BA, Head of Legal Experts CFBA.

Colin Spender CFBA MCFBA BA, Canine Behaviour & Psychology Middlesex University.

Colin holds an Advanced Certificate in Education (Adv Cert Ed) (HE) Christchurch University.

Dog Cruelty Laws in Training and Behaviour

by

The term “necessary cruelty” in the context of English law and dog training is problematic for several reasons. First, cruelty implies intentionally causing harm or suffering, which is inherently negative and often illegal under animal welfare laws. Using this term can misrepresent or confuse the intent and methods of responsible dog training, which aims to prevent harm rather than cause it. Contrary to popular myth, not all serious dog behaviour problems can be modified or interrupted successfully with food or other stimulus rewards.

Why the word “cruelty” is not suitable for all circumstances

  1. Negative connotations: “Cruelty” carries a strong negative connotation, suggesting extreme intentional harm or suffering. This can conflict with the principles of animal welfare and humane treatment mandated by law.
  2. Legal implications: Under English law, particularly the Animal Welfare Act 2006, causing unnecessary suffering to animals is a criminal offence. Using the term “cruelty” could imply a breach of this law, even if the intent was to address problematic behaviour.
  3. Misrepresentation: In dog training, certain methods might be used to prevent greater harm (e.g. restraining a dog to prevent it from running into traffic). Labelling these methods as “cruelty” misrepresents the preventive and protective nature of the actions.

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Unnecessary suffering:

(1) A person commits an offence if –

(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

(2) A person commits an offence if –

(a) he is responsible for an animal,
(b) an act, or failure to act, of another person, causes the animal to suffer,
(c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

(3) The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include –

(a) whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced,
(b) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment.

Animal Welfare Act 2006 (c. 45) 3

(c) whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as –

(i) the purpose of benefiting the animal, or
(ii) the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal.

(d) whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned,
(e) whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person. Under the AWA If a person fails to do something or act to prevent an animal suffering then likewise, an offence could be committed under the legislation.

Using Physical Force in Dog Training

Using force in dog training should be approached with caution. Modern, humane dog training emphasises reward-based reinforcement and minimal use of force. When force is used, it should be for the dog’s, human’s or other animals’ safety and well-being, not to cause unnecessary harm. In basic dog training, especially puppy training, force is the last, not the first, tool to use.

A Labrador jumping on a person in the park can lead to a lawsuit, and I have given evidence in both criminal and civil law cases. Stating “he’s friendly” will not cut it in law. A dog simply hitting a person when running at full speed while chasing a friendly playmate can and has led to civil suits. I am currently involved in one such case involving significant financial damages against the owner of the Labrador.

The definition of the word force has many connotations, depending on the context in the way the word is being used.

Power – strength – energy – influence – impose – coerce – push – shove – pull – compel – to name but a few meanings for the word “force”.

Alternative Terms

To avoid the negative implications of “necessary cruelty,” consider using terms that reflect the intent to protect and ensure the well-being of the dog which are accurate:

  1. Necessary Intervention: This term focuses on the need to step in to prevent harm or manage behaviour.
  2. Controlled Measures: This emphasises that any actions taken are measured, controlled, and intended to prevent greater harm.
  3. Protective Actions: This highlights the intent to protect the dog from danger or harm.
  4. Behavioural Management: This term reflects the goal of managing or modifying the dog’s behaviour responsibly.
  5. Humane Correction: This term implies that any corrective measures are taken with the dog’s welfare in mind, following humane standards, especially where the alternative is committing a criminal offence under UK dog laws.

Using terms like “necessary intervention” or “controlled measures” is more appropriate and legally sound than “necessary cruelty” when discussing dog training. These alternatives align better with the principles of animal welfare and the legal framework in English law, emphasising the protective and preventive nature of the actions taken. Veterinary intervention is often an area in which the word cruelty is ignited despite the good intentions of the vet. Vets do not tell owners they are committing cruelty on their pet for its benefit, which they do physically and psychologically every day in the UK because the result is for the animal’s ultimate well-being.

In the context of a dog trainer handling a dog that suddenly becomes aggressive, “necessary cruelty” might involve using physical force to prevent the dog from causing serious injury. Here is an example:

Example: Using physical force to restrain an aggressive dog

A professional dog trainer is working with a large, strong dog known to have behavioural issues. During a training session, the dog unexpectedly lunges at the trainer, attempting to bite them. The trainer has to act quickly to prevent serious injury.

  • In this situation, the trainer might:
  • Grab the dog’s collar/harness or scruff: The trainer might grab the dog by the collar or the scruff of the neck to hold the dog back, preventing it from reaching them with its teeth.
  • Use their body weight to hold/control the dog: To stop the dog from continuing to lunge and attack, the trainer might use their body weight to hold the dog to the ground. This could involve holding the dog down by its shoulders or chest, which might cause the dog discomfort or even pain but is necessary to prevent injury.
  • Applying a muzzle: If the dog is particularly aggressive, the trainer might need to use a muzzle to prevent the dog from biting. The process of getting the muzzle on the dog might involve holding the dog’s mouth shut, wrestling with the dog, or otherwise using physical restraint that could cause distress; dogs don’t like muzzles. Circumstances dictate whether the above is urgent or not.
  • You can go onto any website, and you will read that it’s easy to condition a dog to accept a muzzle. This is so factually wrong. It is not easy, and dogs that have not been conditioned to accept a muzzle may take months. Most dogs never truly accept it in my experience, and that is thousands of dogs I have seen. Exceptions to the rule are not relevant. A muzzle may be necessary or legally compulsive, but to a dog, it is anathema.

Here I will give a personal example of what I observed recently at my veterinary surgery. I was taking my German Shepherd there for a scan, as he is elderly. When I pulled up in the car park, I opened the back of my vehicle, and before I let my dog out, I saw a vet, a veterinary nurse, and a dog owner trying to control a beagle on the ground. The dog was panicking, and they were trying to get a muzzle on it, all three were on top of the dog. I concluded that the reason they were in the car park was that they could not get the dog into the surgery rooms due to a fear phobia learned from past negative experiences at the vets, regardless of what the vets or nurses were trying to do for its well-being.

I stood by my vehicle, and though a behaviourist, I did not interfere or offer my help because it is not always wanted, especially with veterinary staff. So, I just stood there waiting for them to finish so I could take my dog into the surgery. The dog began screeching and screaming so loudly that you could hear it from probably 500 metres away. If you were not observing what was going on, you would think the dog was being seriously injured, which, of course, it was not. I could see the vet staff trying to avoid being bitten, and the only person the dog did not try to bite was the owner.

This went on for quite a long time. Eventually, I decided to walk around the scene and take my dog into the surgery. It was obvious that the veterinary staff and the dog owner were trying to get a muzzle onto the dog and this was not the first time because you could see by the dog’s behaviour that it anticipated what was about to happen as it started screeching as soon as they got the muzzle out and it could see it. The veterinary staff and the owner intended to get the dog into the surgery so they could conduct an examination or help it with whatever was wrong. This is another example of necessary cruelty, hence why the word in law is not good.

Dog conditions for necessity:

In this scenario, the physical force used would likely be considered “Necessary Intervention” if the following conditions are met:

  1. Legitimate purpose: The trainer’s actions are taken solely to protect themselves from serious harm. The intention is not to cause undue suffering to the dog but to prevent an immediate and significant threat.
  2. Proportionality: The level of force used is proportional to the danger posed by the dog. For example, pinning the dog down to stop the attack is appropriate if the dog is actively trying to bite. However, once the dog is under control, continuing to apply excessive force would not be justified.
  3. No reasonable alternative: In the heat of the moment, the trainer may not have any alternative method to stop the dog’s attack, such as using a lead or command to de-escalate the situation. Physical restraint might be the only option available to prevent serious injury.

Legal Perspective:

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, this use of force would likely be considered necessary to prevent greater harm (i.e. the trainer being bitten or severely injured). The law generally recognises that in emergency situations like this, causing some degree of suffering to the animal may be justified to protect human safety.

However, the force must be limited to what is necessary to stop the attack. Once the dog is restrained or muzzled and no longer poses a threat, the use of force should be immediately reduced to avoid crossing the line into unnecessary cruelty.

The necessity of dog training, especially when it involves teaching dogs to behave in ways that are unnatural to them, is often driven by the need to ensure both the dog’s safety and the safety of others in a human-dominated environment. This necessity is underscored by various laws in England that impose legal responsibilities on dog owners. Failing to properly train a dog can lead to legal conflicts, where the owner might be held liable under specific statutes.

For example,

The Dogs Act 1871 Section 2
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953

Necessity of Dog Training to Prevent Legal Conflicts

Dog training often involves teaching dogs to suppress or modify their natural instincts, such as hunting, territorial behaviour, and aggression, to prevent them from getting into trouble, either by harming others or by putting themselves in danger. This type of training is not just a matter of convenience but is often legally required to avoid conflicts with the law.

1. Animal Welfare Act 2006

  • Legal Obligation: The Animal Welfare Act 2006 places a duty of care on dog owners to ensure the welfare of their pets, which includes providing a suitable environment, diet, and the ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns, and protecting them from pain, suffering, injury, and disease.
  • Example: If a dog is not trained to stay within the confines of a garden or to avoid running into the street, it might get injured or killed in traffic. Failing to train the dog in this way could be seen as neglecting its welfare, violating the owner’s duty under the Act.
  • Conflict: If a dog repeatedly escapes and gets injured, this could be interpreted as a failure to prevent suffering and injury, leading to potential prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act for not taking reasonable steps to protect the animal from harm. Also, other offences would or could be committed, such as allowing your dog to stray (The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992; offences under Road Traffic Act 1988 c.52 Part 1 control of dogs on roads).

2. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended)

  • Legal Obligation: The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is designed to protect the public from dogs that are considered dangerous. It is illegal to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place (England or Wales, whether or not a public place)
  • Example: A dog that has not been properly socialised or trained to control its aggression might attack a person or another animal. Even if the dog is acting on natural territorial or protective instincts, the owner could be held liable under this Act.
  • Conflict: If a dog bites someone because it was not trained to remain calm around strangers, the owner could face severe penalties, including the possibility of the dog being seized and destroyed and the owner facing fines and imprisonment.

3. Dogs Act 1871 Section 2

  • Legal Obligation: The Dogs Act 1871 allows a court to order that a dog be kept under control or destroyed if it is shown to be dangerous and not kept under proper control.
  • Example: If a dog is not trained to walk on a lead properly and continuously escapes, running loose and causing fear or harm to others, the owner could be summoned to court. This might lead to an order requiring the dog to be controlled in specific ways or even destroyed if deemed dangerous.
  • Conflict: Repeated incidents where a dog escapes and behaves aggressively towards others could lead to the owner being taken to court under the Dogs Act 1871, resulting in legal action to ensure the dog is kept under strict control.

4. Highways Act 1980 Section 27

Legal Obligation: Under the Highways Act 1980, it is an offence to allow a dog to be on a public road without being on a lead.

  • Example: A dog that is not trained to walk on a lead might run into traffic, causing accidents. The owner could be held liable for any damage or injuries caused by the dog’s actions.
  • Conflict: If a dog causes a road traffic accident because it was not on a lead or under proper control, the owner could face prosecution under the Highways Act, with the potential for fines and civil liability for damages.

5. Environmental Protection Act 1990 (Statutory Nuisance)

  • Legal Obligation: The Environmental Protection Act 1990 addresses issues like noise pollution, which includes persistent barking by dogs. Excessive barking can be classified as a statutory nuisance.
  • Example: A dog that is not trained to remain calm and quiet might bark excessively when left alone or when someone approaches the house. This could lead to complaints from neighbours.
  • Conflict: If the barking leads to complaints, the local authority could issue a noise abatement notice under the Environmental Protection Act. If the barking continues, the owner could face fines and be required to take action, such as further training or soundproofing.

Conclusion on natural and unnatural canine behaviour

Training dogs to behave in ways that may be unnatural to them, such as not chasing after animals, not barking excessively, or remaining calm in the presence of strangers, is essential to avoid conflicts with English law. Each of these laws imposes specific duties on dog owners to ensure that their pets do not cause harm, distress, or nuisance to others, and failing to train a dog appropriately can lead to serious legal consequences.

The necessity of dog training and modification behaviour plans is not just about creating a well-behaved pet but about fulfilling legal responsibilities and ensuring the safety and welfare of both the dog and the public in Britain.

www.colintennant.co.uk

Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents
    Scroll to Top

    Prosecuting Dog Owners if a Dog Knocks a Person Over

    by
    Dog Jumping Up

    Whippey v Jones

    Colin Tennant, FCFBA MA, (criminal & Civil Court expert witness) presents a illustrative case in which a Great Dane, present in a public location, leaped onto an individual, causing him to fall and sustain injuries. This case serves as a notable instance highlighting the relevance of the Animals Act 1971 and serves as a cautionary narrative emphasizing the importance of adequately training and controlling dogs within public areas. The expenses incurred in pursuing this case, ultimately reaching the appellate courts, would have amounted to a substantial financial burden for both parties involved

    Background

    Mr Jones was visiting Leeds on business and decided to do some running training. While running along the footpath by the river, he was knocked into the area of his right shoulder by a Great Dane named Hector, who was off the leash and owned by Mr Whippey. Mr Jones suffered damages as a result of this incident and sued Mr Whippey.

    Ex Tempore Judgment

    The judge ruled that Mr Jones was not liable to Mr Whippey under the Animals Act 1971, but held that Mr Whippey was liable to Mr Jones in negligence. The judge allowed Mr Whippey to appeal in general terms. The judge also found that Hector was “the most gentle of creatures” and that Great Danes in general are not aggressive towards human beings. The judge found that Hector had no tendency to jump up at other people. Mr Whippey had stated in evidence that he would only let the dogs off the leash if he was satisfied that no one was about in the park area. However, the judge did not make an express finding that Mr Whippey should have seen that Mr Jones was running nearby along the footpath at the time that Hector was let off the lead.

    Argument

    Mr Giles Mooney, who appeared for Mr Whippey, argued that the judge erred in finding that Mr Whippey had been negligent. He submitted that, given his findings of fact, the judge’s conclusion that Mr Whippey had been negligent in handling Hector that day could not be criticised.

    Duty of Care

    In this case, Mr Whippey clearly owed a duty of care to Mr Jones with regard to the way Mr Whippey handled Hector in the public park in Leeds that afternoon and the judge so found. The effect of the judgment is that the judge found that Mr Whippey had failed to take sufficient care to ensure that there were no other people about before he let Hector off the lead. This is clear from classic statements of the law on the standard of care that is expected of people in circumstances where they owe a duty of care to others. Nor is the remote possibility of injury occurring enough; there must be sufficient probability to lead a reasonable man to anticipate it.

    Legal Test

    In my judgment, the test that the judge applied in the first sentence of paragraph 17 of his judgment does not accurately reflect those statements of the law. A good way to check whether the judge applied the right test is by reference to the judge’s findings when he dismissed Mr Jones’ claim under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971. The judge held that Mr Jones had failed to prove any of the three elements set out in section 2(2) of that Act, all of which must be established before Mr Whippey, as Hector’s keeper, could have been held liable under that Act for damage caused to Mr Jones by Hector. The judge held that Mr Jones failed to prove that the “damage” that he has suffered, i.e. a personal injury resulting from physical contact with Hector, ” was of a type which the animal was likely to cause. In my opinion, it demonstrates that the judge did not apply the correct legal test.

    Here is a link to the whole case on the Casemine website https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff70a60d03e7f57ea6822

    The Conflict of Law by Colin Tennant

    by

    The Dog Behaviour Practitioner & the Law
    I was walking down a street when a Jack Russell Terrier raced out of a house and attacked my leg. This occurred when I started out as young policemen on foot patrol in Cheshire many years ago; avoiding the Jack Russell’s flashing teeth meant that I came to no harm other than an Adrenalin boost and a wobbly helmet.

    I immediately prosecuted the owner under the old Dogs Act 1871 and the owner received a warning and a small fine. I am now more than ever involved in litigation – civil and criminal – and mainly engaged for the defence of dogs due to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA). However, the Noise Abatement Act 1978 is a frequent interloper in my professional court case work, that can be complex and strange in its proportions of conflict. In addition, assessing the tracking abilities of police dogs in criminal prosecutions relating to burglaries/theft is also in demand. Dogs biting people in public places is also a regular case-note file that lands on my desk notwithstanding cases concerning the proscribed breeds section under the DDA. On the bizarre side, there was one case of a mother who claimed that her son had been accused by his wife of having sex with the family dog.

    I will try to illuminate the world of dog law in relation to my profession and work with dogs, in plain English.

    A lawyer recently contacted me stating that his clients’ case was most urgent and their dog needed immediate assessment. A few days later at my centre, in walked a beautiful Staffordshire Bull Terrier named Buzz with his owner Mr J, in regard to its aberrant behaviour. The story in brief is that whilst Buzz was out being walked, he grabbed a woman’s leg and bit into it, causing her to fall over. The incident was reported to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service summonsed the owners to court under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

    • Other cases this year have included: Labrador’s owner prosecuted under the Noise Abatement Act 1978 that cost him £5000 in fines plus court costs.
    • A client whose goat was attacked by a neighbour’s Great Dane and I acted as an arbitrator – this case has now transferred to the civil courts for damages.
    • A case of a corgi that bit a policeman in a public park and the owner being an actor who did not desire such negative publicity.
    • A rape case where I have been called to give evidence for the defendant accused of the rape and I opinionated on a police dogs’ tracking ability being good or bad evidence. This also saw me receiving an unusual case whereby a person was murdered whilst out with their dogs and the barrister in question is requiring my knowledge of specific breed behaviours, pack disruption and consequences of such traumatic circumstances.

    My police background and expertise in dog behaviour and psychology, criminal law, conducting investigations and evidence gathering allows me to undertake complex cases, which I thoroughly enjoy. Giving evidence in court is essential if one is to represent clients professionally and with competence.

    First back to Buzz, the mongrel and the order of procedure. The lawyer representing the client contacts me, discusses the case and ascertains the likelihood of my evidence helping him defend his client and his dog. The client duly arrives at the centre knowing that my opinion may be the deciding factor in their defence. They are often tense, emotionally exhausted and look to me for hope. Their dog means a great deal to them, otherwise they would not spend so much money on counsel and general defence costs.

    When the Mr and Mrs J arrived I filmed them on my centre camera network, how they managed their dog out of the car and particularly what control they had over the dog in the consulting room. Within minutes one can quite accurately determine owner/dog relationships. The lawyer had already sent me the summary of case facts, statements from two police officers and a nurse who tended the injured complainant, Mr J’s statement and other related evidence/paperwork. I had built up a full picture in my mind’s eye of what happened before we began the consultation. With the clients’ permission I videotaped the entire three-hour session. Then, as I would have done as a police officer, asked the client to relate the entire incident to me step by step, I only interrupt to maintain continuity or to exact more pertinent detailed evidence. I then mentally re visit the scene and clarify every single fact I feel is critical to the defence’s case and the dog’s behaviour. At the same time I have noted much interplay between Buzz and his owners. I have also surreptitiously executed actions and gestures to observe Buzz’s aggressive trigger reactions, further helping my behavioural assessment.

    Temperament Test
    The next phase is to test the dog’s temperament, which takes place in the consulting rooms and outside in the centre gardens especially designed for such tests away from the public gaze, using highly skilled dog trainers.

    Evidence Compilation
    The most important part of being an expert witness is having the skills to write precise, usable evidence and that is where many experts in dog behaviour fail, only law training can produce that skill. What you write often more or less determines the court outcome. Poor evidence compilation can and does destroy a very defensible case. Remember, in court a very skilled counsel will pick over your every word and innuendo. They may have somebody equal to you as their expert representing the prosecution and to counter your opinion. Knowing the rules of evidence writing and being able to construct such evidence is not an option; it takes years of practice. Some lawyers will help you, but if you are not careful it can backfire. When you are in the witness box you are on your own and what you wrote is what you are judged on.

    Appearing in Court
    Most witnesses will agree that appearing in a court is a very nerve racking experience with little to commend itself. I cannot in this article enter into much description other than to state that as an expert witness, you need to perform and yes, it is a performance, in a calm, unemotional and authoritative manner, which is not always easy when counsel for the prosecution or defence is determined to destroy your credibility. I have met some fellow experts who declared not to ever enter a court again having been humiliated and embarrassed at their first appearance. You can read more about being an expert witness on the CFBA website. I recently had a rough time with a judge in court, but after a break, it has simply sharpened me up for the next case I deal with and experience is gleaned once again.

    Now onto the next case and outcome
    Rob is the owner of the Labrador I alluded to earlier, named Pippa; unfortunately for Rob, Pippa is a yapper, howler and generally a noisy dog. The behaviour is episodic, but Rob lives in North London in a typical suburban road. The dog is cared for reasonably well and walked regularly; part of Pippa’s daily routine is being left in the garden in good weather, with accommodation for a few hours each day. Rob works from home so spends lots of time with Pippa. Local people have complained about Pippa’s barking – to the council, not Rob.

    Evidence compiled by a council dog warden and other officials who stood outside Rob’s home, including audio taping his dog barking, landed Rob in the court under the Noise Abatement Act 1978. Rob asked me to opine on whether his dog barks to the point of being a nuisance. Rob had filmed Pippa over two weeks and handed me the tapes, a lot of tapes, to view.

    It was immediately obvious to me from the tapes that Pippa was barking because of a mild fear base, rather than aimless bored barking. Even so the total amount of barking per day never exceeded about 15 minutes in total. I pointed out to Rob that though I could make suggestions to reduce the barking, the prime cause was a defective temperament and that Pippa’s barking was exaggerated alert barking to general local sounds. He applied my behavioural remedy suggestions immediately.

    I wrote a statement for court, but the council brought along an army of officials and Rob could not afford my costs to appear. He also was so angered by the pettiness of the officials, he wanted to defend himself and show his weeks of tape evidence. Rob later told me that the magistrates seemed to have made their mind up before he spoke. He was found guilty and the magistrates fined Rob £5000.00 including costs. This to me was not justice, because if Rob had been wealthy he probably would have been able to fight the case more robustly. The council used ratepayers’ money for their action.

    What determines a noisy dog is arbitrary so it is important to address the barking problem before your neighbours do.

    Serious Crime
    During last summer, one of my colleagues came to my office saying that a lawyer was on the phone with an unusual request regarding a criminal case of rape. Even I raised an eyebrow as to how that would require my doggy skills. The lawyer quickly acquainted me with a case summary. A woman raped, the defendant who lives six houses from her is in custody and awaiting trial.

    The lawyer said that a component part of the prosecution’s case was police dog handler’s evidence that stated that he arrived at the scene and tracked from the victim’s house (a hard track on road) to the defendant’s house. The lawyer’s question was: Is that possible? I examined all the available evidence and concluded that this scenario was very much in doubt and needed challenging. At the trial other evidence, unbeknown to me at the time of my evidence compilation, was used – the defendant was found guilty on more substantial evidence including leaving a shoe in the victim’s bedroom – bit of a giveaway really.

    Many people believe that all dogs should be automatically euthanized having bitten; even some veterinarians voice this opinion. In my view this extremism is amoral and often based on ignorance or the vets wishing to place themselves out of harm’s way if matters go wrong. I do not think that society should accommodate truly dangerous dogs, but understanding that dog aggression, growling, nipping, biting and barking is a dog’s natural species behaviour to communicate its mood to its own kind and to us. Our job is to moderate, condition and minimise possible conflict, which in most cases we do with 6 million dogs. Remember that whatever we expose domestic dogs to is unnatural; dog training is unnatural; living in a house is alien to a dog. Its genetic make up is designed to live in a natural landscape devoid of human interference, yet despite the changes we impose it is still the most wonderful creature to have been successfully brought into our homes out of the kingdom of animals.

    As an aside, if we take a peep into human aggression, conflict and behaviour in the UK, we certainly are not a paragon of civility and good behaviour. The BBC website records 22.000 knife crimes last year alone, tens of thousands of people attacked violently each year by their own kind and hundreds murdered.

    Dogs, it seems, can and do bite, but are not as dangerous as our fellow man. The irony of the matter is that dogs don’t realise that what they do, offends us or the law – people do.

    By Colin Tennant – Senior Dog Behaviour Consultant

    Useful contacts:
    Cambridge Institute of Dog Behaviour & Training

    Course on Dog Law: www.cidbt.org.uk

    Legal Aid: www.slab.org.uk

    Lawyers: Trevor Cooper: www.doglaw.co.uk

    Pet Insurance: Pet Plan: www.petplan.co.uk

    Dog Experts in Law: www.cfba.co.uk

    This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Colin Tennant for the CFBA, the CIDBT, and their students of Animal Behaviour