Dog A-Z > L > Legal Responsibilities (Law) > Dangerous Dogs Act

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and Amendment Act 1997

Background History

In 1990 and 1991 there was a sudden increase in the number of UK newspaper reports of dog attacks although there was no apparent rise in the number of dog bites. Initially, reports concentrated on the Rottweiler breed. During 1991 the emphasis seemed to shift to the American Pit Bull Terrier (APBT). In 1991, in a knee-jerk reaction to public outrage, the Government introduced a hastily-produced and poorly thought out piece of legislation, the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991.

The Law

The DDA 1991 contains two main sections:

• Section 1 of the Act stipulates that owners of the ‘type of dog known as a pit bull terrier’ and three other breed types (Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero) have to fulfil certain strict requirements. These include keeping the dog muzzled and on a lead at all times in a public place, having the dog insured and neutered with the aim of the types becoming extinct in the UK. Owners of these dogs cannot give away or sell their dogs and any dog of a prescribed type had to fulfil all of the requirements of the DDA 1991 by November 1991 or their dog would become illegal. The dog also had to have its details registered on an ‘Index’ maintained by government.  Any person who owned a dog of one of the types was committing an offence if the dog was not on the Index.  Owners were also given the option of accepting a token compensation from the government for having their dogs voluntarily destroyed. Individuals of these breeds can be imported into Britain but cannot be registered and so are illegal as soon as they enter the country.

• The second part of the DDA 1991, Section 3, affects all dogs regardless of breed. It makes it a criminal offence to allow a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place. This includes any instance during which an injury of any sort occurs or there is a fear that an injury might occur.  It is primarily aimed at dogs that have inflicted significant injury and applies only in a public place.

Under the DDA 1991, owners convicted of having either an ‘illegal dog’ or a dog which has injured a person for any reason, no matter how minor the injury, may receive a criminal record, up to £5000 fine and up to six months in prison. The dog will be destroyed.

Problems of Identification

In addition to these already draconian measures, the definition of a ‘type of dog known as a pit bull terrier’ had to be legally designated, as the APBT was not recognised by the Government or the UK Kennel Club as a pure breed. The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court decided in July 1993 that:

‘They could properly conclude that a dog was of the type known as the pit bull terrier if its characteristics substantially conformed to the American Dog Breeders Association’s standard.’

The standards for the APBT are however, extremely vague by UK pure breed standards. This means that any dog, regardless of its parentage could be considered a ‘pit bull type’. Hundreds of crossbred dogs and their owners have suffered as a result of this definition. It is even more difficult for owners to fight these cases because the burden of proof lies with the defence. The owner has to prove to the court that the dog is not a ‘pit bull type’ rather than the police having to prove that it is.

From 1992 to 1997, at least 770 destruction orders were made against dogs under this Act. There were 13 dogs that had exhausted all legal process while awaiting destruction and seven dogs in limbo, as there were no legal proceedings against them but the police refused to return them to their owners. Dogs held in limbo may be kept by the police indefinitely, at a cost to the British taxpayer of £23,000 per year.

When a dog is suspected to be illegal, the police seize it and take it to a secret location. It is almost impossible for the owner to visit the dog and welfare reports on the dogs in police care are rarely forthcoming. In 1997, the average length of incarceration for a dog in these cases was two years and four months. The longest period for any dog being held is now over seven years and one dog has died of old age in police custody.

Dogs Trust has worked to change this legislation and also cares for registered ‘pit bull terriers’, who are cared for at our Rehoming Centres for the rest of their lives.

The DDA Reform Group

Dogs Trust (then known as the NCDL), as Secretariat to the DDA Reform Group, put constant pressure on the Government to amend the Act. In March 1997 the DDA Amendment Bill was successfully passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords and received Royal Assent. This resulted in the following changes to the 1991 Act, which came into effect in June 1997:

• If a dog owner is charged under Section 1, the court may allow the owner to register their dog, providing it is satisfied that the dog does not constitute a general danger and, if the dog was born before November 1991, that the owner had a good reason for not having registered it before this date. In cases where a destruction order was placed on a dog before the amendments were introduced the destruction order will no longer have effect. The case should be returned to court for the magistrate to consider whether or not to exercise discretion. However, the emphasis remains on destruction.

• If a dog owner is charged under Section 3, the court may exercise discretion as long as it is satisfied that the dog does not constitute a general danger to the public. In cases where a destruction order was placed on a dog before the amendments were introduced, the destruction order will not be carried out. The case should be returned to court, where the magistrate may exercise discretion. As in Section 1 cases there will be a presumption in favour of destruction.

Although Dogs Trust considers these developments to be positive, it does not support or condone breed-specific legislation.
In 2000, the DDA Reform Group’s activities came to an end as there seemed no prospect of further reform at that time...

The Dog Legislation Advisory Group (DLAG)

Following the disbanding of the DDA Reform Group, the Dog Legislation Advisory Group was formed, with the Kennel Club acting as Secretariat. Following Germany’s introduction of punitive breed specific legislation and the UK’s part in the European Union, it became apparent that this type of anti-dog legislation must be monitored and combated, both at European level and worldwide. The DLAG was formed primarily to review all legislation relating to dogs and monitor such breed specific legislation globally, as well as reviewing other issues such as political party manifestos and dog fighting legislation.