Comments on: In Today’s Good Dog News…It’s Time for Coco - Another DDA Dog is Back Home http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/496/in-todays-good-dog-newsits-time-for-coco-another-dda-dog-is-back-home/ by K9 Magazine, the lifestyle magazine for dog lovers Fri, 25 Jul 2008 12:57:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: C Jackson http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/496/in-todays-good-dog-newsits-time-for-coco-another-dda-dog-is-back-home/#comment-6786 C Jackson Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:44:09 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/496/in-todays-good-dog-newsits-time-for-coco-another-dda-dog-is-back-home/#comment-6786 Although I understand the logic of the last paragraph and know that both the police and local authorities have over the last year tried desperately to find a way to do it I can also explain the reasons why it is difficult: Until a court decides a 'suspect' dog has to be taken to be a dog 'of type' by the authorities; the case that they will put to the court is that this is a dog of type and is therefore its ownership prohibited unless (through the court) it is put onto the index of exempted dogs and the conditions of being on that index are complied with. To release the 'suspect' dog would undermine making that case as in effect the authorities would be leaving a prohibited dog with a person who had ignored that prohibition. The worst possible situation that this could result in is that a dog left with its owner by the police or local authority should then be involved in any kind of incident causing injury to human or animal. For these reasons it is very dificult to simply 'leave' a dog examined under this part of the Act. To do so, from the authorities point of view, would necessitate, at least, that the dogs owner instantly complied with as many terms of an exemption as possible including walking the dog on a lead, muzzled etc.etc (making the assumption that the court will make that exemption official at some future date). But to do this involves the dogs owner in an admisison of guilt which under the worst circumstances could be used to imply that their human rights were infringed as they did not believe that their dog was of the type but had their opportunity to argue that stolen from them in order to keep thier dog with them, or, that agreeing such terms implied guilty knowledge of type which the court may construe and find the person was originally contemptuous of the law which prohibits ownbership and therefore incur the greater penalty of the court (possible destruction of the dog). Without repeal management of this law will remain a nightmare for both 'innocent' owners (and I would point out that an exemption involves guilt as the law stands as the dog is found to be of 'type' and the person guilty of posession of a prohibited dog) of the dogs that become involved and the authorities given this legisaltion for the control of dogs and their ownership. Although I understand the logic of the last paragraph and know that both the police and local authorities have over the last year tried desperately to find a way to do it I can also explain the reasons why it is difficult:
Until a court decides a ’suspect’ dog has to be taken to be a dog ‘of type’ by the authorities; the case that they will put to the court is that this is a dog of type and is therefore its ownership prohibited unless (through the court) it is put onto the index of exempted dogs and the conditions of being on that index are complied with. To release the ’suspect’ dog would undermine making that case as in effect the authorities would be leaving a prohibited dog with a person who had ignored that prohibition. The worst possible situation that this could result in is that a dog left with its owner by the police or local authority should then be involved in any kind of incident causing injury to human or animal.
For these reasons it is very dificult to simply ‘leave’ a dog examined under this part of the Act. To do so, from the authorities point of view, would necessitate, at least, that the dogs owner instantly complied with as many terms of an exemption as possible including walking the dog on a lead, muzzled etc.etc (making the assumption that the court will make that exemption official at some future date). But to do this involves the dogs owner in an admisison of guilt which under the worst circumstances could be used to imply that their human rights were infringed as they did not believe that their dog was of the type but had their opportunity to argue that stolen from them in order to keep thier dog with them, or, that agreeing such terms implied guilty knowledge of type which the court may construe and find the person was originally contemptuous of the law which prohibits ownbership and therefore incur the greater penalty of the court (possible destruction of the dog).
Without repeal management of this law will remain a nightmare for both ‘innocent’ owners (and I would point out that an exemption involves guilt as the law stands as the dog is found to be of ‘type’ and the person guilty of posession of a prohibited dog) of the dogs that become involved and the authorities given this legisaltion for the control of dogs and their ownership.

]]> By: Amazed http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/496/in-todays-good-dog-newsits-time-for-coco-another-dda-dog-is-back-home/#comment-6785 Amazed Tue, 22 Apr 2008 07:12:44 +0000 http://www.dogmagazine.net/archives/496/in-todays-good-dog-newsits-time-for-coco-another-dda-dog-is-back-home/#comment-6785 270 dogs seized in one year! 119 currently being held, staggering? How much does it cost to hold 270 dogs for example for 70 days (as an average) x £10 per day kennels (guessing) = £700 per dog x 270 = £189,000. Perhaps that figure is wildly incorrect and it is actually more than that? Why dont the police leave the 'suspect' dog with the owner and summon them to court with the dog to be examined in the court room on the day by the 'experts' Then if the Magistrates find the dog to be of the type, it is added to the register, or if it is not, they are free to go. Everybody then leaves and the London taxpayers are not paying around £700+ per dog because some police officer decides that a dog is suspicious looking due to its physical appearance. 270 dogs seized in one year!

119 currently being held, staggering?

How much does it cost to hold 270 dogs for example for 70 days (as an average) x £10 per day kennels (guessing) = £700 per dog x 270 = £189,000.

Perhaps that figure is wildly incorrect and it is actually more than that?

Why dont the police leave the ’suspect’ dog with the owner and summon them to court with the dog to be examined in the court room on the day by the ‘experts’ Then if the Magistrates find the dog to be of the type, it is added to the register, or if it is not, they are free to go. Everybody then leaves and the London taxpayers are not paying around £700+ per dog because some police officer decides that a dog is suspicious looking due to its physical appearance.

]]>