There seems to be some misunderstanding about the nature of the Law here.
If you have a bald tyre you will be cautioned and required to amend the problem within a time frame, or face a penalty. the authorities are not required to give you this leeway, but they are doing so as it has been established as best practice to do so, although the officers retain discretion so remember to be polite to them...
The idea being that there is an assumption in Law, with lesser 'crimes', that you may not have not intentionally contravened, (or in truth it would be hard to prove intent), so you are afforded an opportunity to show it was an aberration. (Until such times as there is evidence to the contrary, for example you are found to be driving with a bald tyre three months later; or your vehicle has other issues that indicate a general disregard.)
On the other hand there are times when the authorities' hands are tied as they need to follow guidelines that remove their discretion, (usually handed down in response to public opinion or persistent social problems, for example increased rate of prosecution and stiffer sentencing for drink driving after a campaign against it).
If you drive without insurance, you will almost always be prosecuted and it is highly unlikely that you will not have a penalty imposed, regardless of mitigation, (thought you were covered under employer's policy, did not know insurance was expired, etc.). The arresting officer will require your keys and your motor will be impounded regardless of whether he knows you to be of good character, etc. His discretion has been removed from the equation.
If you drive at over 100 mph you will be certain to face a driving ban in the majority of cases. 99 and you will find out in court if you did not accept the fixed penalty or there was another issue as well.
The reason you will get six points for driving whilst not insured against third party risks, or a ban (albeit perhaps a very short one) for exceeding 100 mph, is that these penalties are set out in guidelines for these crimes. The courts must follow them unless there is an overwhelming reason to differ.
Guidelines ensure consistency amongst the courts. The idea being you should not face a different penalty by accident of geography, or other variables.
It also saves time for the courts, as they can dispose of most cases without having to consider appropriate penalties.
Your brief will tell you what you are facing when you go to court, based on the guidelines, and their personal knowledge of the local bent, which tends to be due to high profile local campaigns, social problems and the like. (I hear parts of Wales were known for being very keen on motoring offences.)
The Dangerous Dogs Act, which I am not particularly familiar with, was amended to allow more case by case interpretation amongst other things. This puts more onus on the courts to make decisions on individual cases rather than relying on guidelines.
Even dogs deemed to be dangerous according to the definitions contained in the acts and amendments will normally have their 'day in court', where an order is required for their destruction.
You should not fear for your dog barking at someone on the odd occasion; nor fear that someone's (often 'irrational') fear of dogs will lead to your dog being seized because they found it threatening.
There is no automated process between someone with a phobia feeling your dog might bight them because they saw it tied up outside Woolworths, and your beloved if a bit grumpy dog being carted off by the Police and destroyed.
It is up to the courts.
Most cases never even get to court.
The prosecuting authority need to believe it is in the public interest and that they can 'win' before they take matters further. They are responsible to a budget, like everyone else, and court time cost a lot of money.
They follow guidelines to save a lot of the initial decision making in most circumstances. The idea that they will ship your dog off to the pound where it will cost lots to keep until a court hearing because it looked at someone funny would make a mockery of the Law. The discretion of those involved and then the guidelines being followed will prevent most such nonsense reaching a court.
Were your animal to end up facing any imposition of control unreasonably, you would have your chance to present your version of events, providing evidence, witness and expert opinion possibly.
Were your animal to have reacted to, for example, violence towards itself or yourself, by biting an assailant you will have the opportunity to explain this to the court and your position will be considered before action is taken. If someone threw a punch at you as you walked past them in the park and your darling pooch nipped their thigh or elbow you are very unlikely to end up losing your dog.
Nothing in this process is automatic, save for an investigation being made once a complaint has been received.
The best illustration of this are the number of cases you can read about where dogs have bitten people yet the courts did not have them destroyed.
There are circumstances where a dog is not responsible for its nature.
It is for the courts to decide.
Personally I think they get it very wrong sometimes, and that is very unfortunate.
One good example found here:
http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/8186...ed_stay_of_execution_after_string_of_attacks/
I would like to see dog ownership mainly restricted to working dogs, and if you 'need' to keep dogs for other reasons you will need to take on board that responsibility in a much more formalised manner.
There are far too many dogs about now, something has to be done.
