15 May 2017
Alison Howey continuing her series of law articles, looks at the legal provisions of some acts, regulations and orders – and the vet’s role should they be contravened.
Alison Howey
Job Title
The Control of Dogs Order 1992 states any dog in a public place must wear a collar with the name and address, including postcode, of the owner on it. IMAGE: © Fotolia/catgrig.
Since 6 April 2016, every keeper of a dog that has not been implanted with a microchip, is older than eight weeks and is not a certified working dog for the purposes of Section 6(3) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, must ensure it is microchipped.
However, a vet can certify a dog should not be microchipped for health reasons. No person may implant a microchip in a dog unless:
The microchip must have a unique number and be entered on to an authorised database. The regulations provide a list of details that must be recorded on the database to include:
Where applicable, it should be recorded if the keeper is also the breeder and, if so and he or she is licensed by the local authority under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, (i) the breeder’s licence number and (ii) the name of the local authority by which he or she is licensed.
Some of the reasons behind compulsory microchipping of dogs are it is expected to make it easier for authorities to identify the persons responsible for stray dogs and dangerous dogs, and also to act as a deterrent to dog theft and assist with the identification and return of such dogs. A financial penalty of up to £500 will apply for keepers failing to comply with these regulations.
Stray dogs are no longer the responsibility of the police and each local authority is required to appoint officers to discharge functions regarding these dogs. Any dog found in a public place, or on other land or premises, is taken to be a stray, and can be seized and detained. If the dog is found on private premises/land, the owner or occupier of the land must provide his or her consent for the dog to be seized.
If the dog is wearing a collar with ownership details then a notice of seizure shall be served on the owner, stating if the dog is not claimed and expenses of detention are not paid within seven days then the dog may be disposed of.
Anyone finding a stray dog shall return the animal to its owner or take it to the local authority. The finder may be allowed to keep the dog if it is not claimed and if he or she informs the local authority he or she wishes to do so.
Any finder not complying with these provisions will be liable to conviction to a fine not exceeding level two (£500). The Environmental Protection (Stray Dogs) Regulations 1992 allow local authorities to appoint an officer to deal with stray dogs and oblige that officer to keep a public register of dogs seized.
The Environmental Protection Act 1990 also provides for prosecution in relation to nuisance caused by noise, including barking dogs. Nuisance is defined as “an unlawful interference with a person’s use or enjoyment of land or of some right over, or in connection with it”.
For noise to amount to a nuisance, it must be prejudicial to health or a nuisance under the aforementioned act.
If excessive noise is reported to the local authority then it has a duty to make enquiries and, if it is satisfied such a nuisance exists, may serve a noise abatement notice.
The notice may require the noise be stopped altogether or be limited to certain times of the day. There are 21 days in which to appeal that notice. Failure to comply with such a notice, without reasonable excuse, renders the person guilty of an offence and liable to pay a fine not exceeding level five (£5,000) and a further fine for every day the nuisance continues post-conviction.
Excessive noise can also amount to a criminal matter if it amounts to a breach of the peace, or an antisocial behaviour issue.
Therefore, it is possible to receive an Antisocial Behaviour Order (ASBO) due to being an irresponsible dog owner and allowing a dog/dogs to bark to the extent they cause a nuisance to neighbours. Breaching an ASBO can result in a sentence of imprisonment.
Under the Animal Health Act 1981, orders may be made for the muzzling of dogs and keeping them under control. This includes the seizure, detention and disposal of stray dogs, unmuzzled dogs and dogs not being kept under proper control.
Any expenses incurred relating to such steps may be recovered from the owner. There is also provision of a power to order dogs must wear a collar bearing the details of the owner.
The Control of Dogs Order 1992 also states any dog in a public place must wear a collar with the name and address, including postcode, of the owner on it.
This is required regardless of whether a dog is microchipped. A fine of up to £5,000 applies for non-compliance. Exceptions exist for working dogs during work, guide dogs or dogs being used for sporting purposes.
Local authorities require a dog breeding licence is required if you breed five or more litters of puppies during any 12-month period. This licence will be valid for one year and a vet or other appointed inspector may inspect premises to verify the dogs:
Failure to comply with the regulations of this act can result in a maximum of three months’ imprisonment and/or a fine of £2,500. A Defra consultation proposed the introduction of new legislation to improve the welfare of breeding dogs and their puppies, and to strengthen existing regulations. Such proposals seek to include smaller, so-called “backstreet breeders” under the regime of licensing legislation. The results of the consultation can be found at http://bit.ly/2dg9H8H
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 came into force on 13 May 2014 and made several new provisions regarding antisocial behaviour, crime and disorder (which are in addition to the aforementioned amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act). These new provisions are expected to assist local authorities to control and prevent problems caused by irresponsible dog owners, as well as addressing public disorder issues.
The court may grant a prohibitive injunction against persons conducting behaviour that causes, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress – or housing-related nuisance or annoyance. These behaviours include noise problems caused by dogs and disorder-related problems created by dog owners intimidating others, with status type and uncontrolled dogs. These injunctions can prohibit certain behaviour and carry a power of arrest if breached.
Local authorities can make a Public Spaces Protection Order to prevent activities carried on in a public place that have a detrimental effect on the quality of life in that area and are unreasonable, persistent and continuing. These orders replace the dog control orders previously made pursuant to the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.
Similarly to injunctions, such orders may prohibit certain activities and are used by local authorities to prohibit dogs from entering play areas or certain parks that suffer ongoing problems with fouling or where there is a requirement to tackle disorder caused by persons with status dogs. These orders are often used to control the problem of dog fouling and make it an offence not to clear up dog faeces in certain areas. The penalty for breaching these orders is either a fine or a fixed penalty notice.
As with Public Space Protection Orders, the local authority can issue a community protection notice to either an individual or a body, if satisfied the conduct is having a detrimental effect, of a persistent and ongoing nature, on the quality of life of those in the locality, and that such conduct is unreasonable.
These orders can specify the conduct that must be refrained from or require certain things must be done, to prevent the alleged detrimental effect. For example, a local authority can use these orders to prevent dog fouling or to prohibit dogs being exercised in play areas. Failure to comply with the notice may result in a fine.
Once a person has been convicted of an offence relating to behaviour causing harassment, alarm or distress, a court will have the power to make a criminal behaviour order. Similarly to the aforementioned provisions, these orders may contain prohibitions or requirements to help prevent similar behaviour in the future. For example a convicted person may be prohibited from taking a dog into specified public places, or from using a dog to intimidate persons. Breach of these orders may result in a financial penalty and/or imprisonment.
It is an offence for a dog to be at large, off the lead or out of close control in a field or enclosure in which sheep are present. The NFU estimates the worrying of livestock costs the agricultural industry £1.2 million each year, with thousands of sheep and cattle being killed or euthanised as a result of injuries sustained by dogs.
Under Section 9 of the Animals Act 1971, the landowner is entitled to shoot a dog if he or she believes the dog is worrying – or about to worry – livestock, and that no other reasonable way exists of preventing it. Allegations under this act often require a vet to undertake forensic tests to ascertain a link between the injured or dead sheep and the dog(s) identified as being responsible.
Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, it is an offence to maliciously wound – or cause grievous bodily harm to – another, with or without a weapon or instrument. A person who incites or instructs a dog to do any of these acts may be guilty of the offence and, therefore, be subject to the sentencing powers available to the court for that offence. For example, a person who intentionally instructs his or her dog to bite someone and such bite/attack causes grievous bodily harm (really serious harm) then that person could face imprisonment for a life term.
It is important owners, or those in charge or control of a dog, are aware of all of the legal obligations placed on them by the various legal provisions in place in England and Wales. Ignorance of the law is no defence and being in breach of it may render the dog owner or person in charge liable to prosecution. Sentences range from a fixed penalty or small fine up to a fine of £5,000, deprivation or destruction of the dog – and imprisonment, in some cases.
Vets are often called to help the authorities to determine whether these laws have been contravened by a dog owner, through the identification of primary evidence or by providing expert evidence. It is essential for the vet to have clear understanding of the dog owner’s obligations, to ensure his or her evidence correctly assists in upholding the law.
