‘Dangerous Dogs’
| DOI | 10.1177/0022018315623684 |
| Date | 01 February 2016 |
| Published date | 01 February 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
‘Dangerous Dogs’: Different
Dog, Same Lamppost?*
Lydia Bleasdale-Hill
School of Law, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Jill Dickinson
Department of Law and Criminology, Sheffield Hallam University, South Yorkshire, UK
Abstract
Legislation governing the regulation of dangerous dogs is notoriously fraught with difficulties, in
particular concerning the definitions incorporated within, and the enforcement and application
of, the relevant provisions. This paper examines two aspects of the legislative framework; the
regulation of ‘type-specific’ breeds of dogs, and the extension of regulations relating to the
control of dogs from public to private spheres. These aspects afford an opportunity for two
principal justifications in favour of controlling owners and their dogs to be analysed: the pro-
tection of the public and theneed to responsibilise dog owners. This paper considers the extent
to which type-specific provisions and the extension of dangerous dogs legislation to cover private
spheres achieve those desired aims and concludes that these goals are not clearly met. The
authors recommend a consolidated piece of legislation, alongside a more sophisticated approach
(supported by further research) being adopted with respect to the nature of dog ownership.
Keywords
Dangerous dogs, public safety, private property, public spaces
Introduction
The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was introduced in response to a number of attacks by dogs on children in
particular, and has been described as: ‘a synonym for any unthinking reflex legislative response to media
hype’.
1
This paper summarises the potted, historical development of the legislation concerning danger-
ous dogs, and analyses the rationale behind the legislation. The paper explores two aspects of legislation
covering the field; namely, the extension of the area within which an owner can be liable for the
Corresponding author:
Lydia Bleasdale-Hill, School of Law, The Liberty Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK.
Email: l.k.bleasdalehill@leeds.ac.uk
*Earlier versions of this paper were delivered at the Society of Legal Scholars Conference in Nottingham in 2014, and at
Northumbria University’s Criminal Justice Seminar Series (November 2015). The authors are grateful to the audiences at both
events for their helpful feedback. Any errors are, of course, those of the authors alone.
1. C. Hood, ‘Assessing the Dangerous Dogs Act: When Does a Regulatory Law Fail?’ (2000) Summer Public Law 282–305 at 282
The Journal of Criminal Law
2016, Vol. 80(1) 64–76
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018315623684
clj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial