Some of you will know that my name is displayed as the
originator of a Government petition, to replace breed specific legislation with
a new statutory framework.
There is much to be said about this, it is an enormously
complex area. Why this petition is needed I will leave to another blog entry,
but for now, I think it worth detailing what it is that we want as an outcome.
It is time to have another discussion in Parliament about
BSL and the Dangerous Dogs Act. BSL covers dogs suspected of being a banned
type. It is not a case that the dog must be 100% breed specific. Indeed Pit
Bull has not been recognised as an official breed, and we talk about dogs that
are “type”, in other words they have characteristics of the breeds that are
banned.
The overall aim of the petition is to ditch the approach of
banned breeds, but focus on dogs that are dangerous due to their behaviour. Blame
the deed, not the breed. Unfortunately, discussion has turned to the
inadequacies of the wording of the petition information, rather than worrying
about the overall aim which is to see a change in how we deal with dangerous
dogs.
Just how a dog is assessed is highly variable and there are
accusations that enforcement officers are not conducting this in a uniform way.
There are accusations that dogs are put to sleep before a court order officially
permits, due to a misunderstanding of how the appeals system works. When raising
these issues, I am not submitting evidence before a court. I am not writing an
academic article. I do not wish to expose the identity of anyone who makes
these claims. Provided I do not name any authorities as having done these
things, then no libel is committed. It is then up to the authorities to assure
us all that things are done correctly. It has been suggested that the wording
of the petition is damaging to the overall cause, because it makes claims that
are not supported by a significant number of cases, or indeed any.
In terms of the number of examples, law textbooks concerning
any area of the law will use examples of cases which highlight the ineffective
application of the law. Academic argument does not require a threshold test to
be met in terms of the number of cases before it becomes unacceptable. Even one
case of misapplication is enough to highlight a flaw. This often brings out
other cases which have remained out of the public arena, and there are many
instances across the law where this is the case.
The petition specifies that any new system must be applied
in the same manner across the jurisdiction. Different regions have been known
to apply different standards to the process of making a decision whether to put
a dog to sleep. The destruction of a dog under any provision, BSL or not, must
only be made by a court order or the owner’s permission. Generally that is,
before I get further criticism for not mentioning other exceptions. A recent
judicial decision included reference to the fact that only a court can order a
dog to be put to sleep as a dog has a right not to have its life arbitrarily
taken. The petition suggests that any system must be applied by all local authorities in a similar
manner, it is not stating that previous examples where this is not the case
have been or are limited to BSL cases. Nevertheless, there are cases of BSL
dogs that have been destroyed without a court order, the 22 Merseyside dogs are
an example. Other pending cases, I am led to believe, exist but are pending
further legal action and remain anonymous.
There are many aspects to many cases, and not all are easy
to describe or refer to. Take for example a case where there is a court order,
but the dog is destroyed before the time to appeal. The destruction is
unlawful. The court order does not permit this, and therefore it is arguable
that the destruction is without a court order. Those responsible are variable. Of
course, this may be police or local authorities, and perhaps the use of the
implied reference to local authorities in the petition was bad wording, but I
think to focus on the semantics rather misses the point. No individual
authority was named so no libel. We just want a system where we can be assured
that no dog is destroyed without the express consent of the legal owner or a court order.
A government petition does not need to specify all sources
and corroborative evidence, neither is it an academic peer reviewed statement. The
petition committee did not object to the lack of stated authorities. It is an
attempt to promote discussion. The word count for the petition does not permit
extensive discussion. The matter of BSL and the DDA must be debated in
Parliament. That is the point of the petition. Any refusal to help publicise
this will frustrate that aim more than whether I used the most appropriate
words in the brief information provided on the petition itself.
The petition is available here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300561
The petition is available here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/300561
