Grrr, dog owners !

[Neil]

Suggest you look here for the likelyhood of actually being prosecuted for something so innocuous...

...if I'm walking down the street and someone dislikes the look of me and deems it necessary to cross the road to avoid me, without me even being aware of it, I could be charged with 'Common Assult' - but what do you think the likelyhood of that would be :?:

It's just as relevant!

Regarding your, or anyone else's dog, the likelihood of prosecution increases massively if there are further complaints.

This is how a lot of laws are implemented; and it is common sense.

He raises a fair point, though, just because there's potential for action, doesn't make it tenable.

I truly doubt that what's tantamount to thought crime has been successfully prosecuted. Is there any legal precedent for one-off allegations, not substantiated or corroborated, being actually heared, never mind successful?

The law as it stands allows for prosecution. That is what makes it 'tenable'.

The law merely allowing it, doesn't mean that most wouldn't get binned. Firstly, the police would have to decide to pursue, then the CPS would have to decide it had good chance of success, then it'd have to withstand scrutiny by at least a magistrate.

Merely that something is enshrined in law, does not mean prosecutions are truly tenable in practice - at least as a generalism. Perhaps if all the stars align - but I'd say there's a lot of maybes on both sides of it.

All I'm trying to suggest is that the "may" in "may be prosecuted" relies as much on other factors, as simply somebody making a complaint.

Your last question requires clarification. If you are talking about legal proceedings in general, a good number of cases involve only one witness on each side, and of course a number result in conviction.

This originally stemmed from something IDB1 / Ian said about if somebody even thinks a dog may bite them they can take action - and all I'm saying is that that's not really likely to succeed, if the only take on it is two people, who disagree, and one who says "I thought his dog was going to bite me". There'd have to be more than simply one person's voicing their opinion - they'd have to either appear significantly more credible, or there'd have to be other instances reported, or other evidence in terms of testimony, witness(es) or CCTV.

Quite different if a dog did actually bite somebody, and there's physical evidence, but I remain entirely unconvinced that people are found guilty merely on the unsubstantiated words of one person, against another, and merely on them claiming they "thought" something might occur.

If you expect anyone here to have an expansive knowledge of the trend in prosecutions regarding dangerous dogs, then you will surely be disappointed.

I'm not asking for trends, I'm just suggesting that one person raising a complaint about what they "thought" a dog might do, with no other substantiation or corroboration, has actually resulted in any number of convictions, that's all.

I'm sure there have been plenty of prosecutions (and successful at that) under the dangerous dogs act, I'm just not convinced that merely the "thought" of something gets much credence, in one-word-against-another, without any other supporting or corroborating evidence.

 

[highlandsflyer]

This is nothing to do with thought crimes. There are material facts.

That was in relation to this:-

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

In that scenario, there are no material facts, merely opinion and supposition.

A dog displayed aggression, or what could reasonably taken as such, towards someone.

That's not a material fact. That's an interpretation - an opinion. If it's not substantiated by anybody else, or by something like CCTV, or other general testimony that they've witnessed similar, it's merely "he said, she said".

There are thousands of examples out there, if you want to look for them, of convictions based on the 'perceptions' of victims.

That, there may be.

However, what I'm questioning is - the single opinion of one person, making a claim, not substantiated by anything more than merely their one-off opinion and testimony, not corroborated by any other evidence (ie other witness statements, CCTV, anything else...). And that person not being "special". If that's produced convictions under the Dangerous Dogs Act, then by all means, cite them.

Bottom line, take care not to let your dog display aggression to a person as a matter of course.

I suspect nobody is arguing against that point.

The point I am disputing, though, is just because there's something mentioned in law, doesn't mean in isolation, and by itself, it's in any way tenable to prosecute. Sure, on occasion, there's an extreme example or something exceptional - but in general practice, what stemmed from that original statement, right at the top that I'm drawing comment on, whilst maybe is the detail, doesn't mean it's possible to practically enforce.

Else what's to stop somebody with a dislike, or grudge, simply saying "That bloke over there ---> he was walking Rongo, and the dog looked at me funny, and I've never liked Mr Chicken-Caesar, I demand you have the dog put down, and Mr Chicken-Caesar pay me lots of thought-crime damages..."

My point was in relation to Stevo's scenario, where he already established his dog barked at the person who complained.

Even in IDB1's scenario, there is no 'thought crime' involved. The complainant in that case would put forward their fear of being bitten/attacked by a dog. Their side would attempt to identify the behaviour of the dog as the source of that fear, and attempt to argue the fear was reasonable.

There are a number of material facts involved, and neither Stevo nor IDB1 added detail such as there being no other witnesses, etc.

As for your scenario, the court would decide whether there was a case for destroying the dog, and their decision would depend on a number of things.

It is unlikely they would be hearing a case where the basis of a complaint was the dislike of an owner, and a dog looking funny at someone.

Now if the person who held this grudge had your dog straining at the leash barking at them matters might be different.

 

[IDB1]

All I'm trying to suggest is that the "may" in "may be prosecuted" relies as much on other factors, as simply somebody making a complaint.

This is true, of course it is.

But I do think it is important for dog owners to be aware of the law and of the possible implications of their (and their dogs) actions.

And that a dog doesn't have to be an 80lb savage beast to fall foul of the DDA.

I haven't managed to contact who I think may be able answer if any prosecutions have been made and of their success (or not).

 

[highlandsflyer]

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

Size and breed makes no difference.

The owner 'may' be prosecuted.

I see no mention of there being no other witnesses, nor of no history of the dog in question acting in a way that may be perceived as threatening.

How come we are being corralled into this cyclical debate over a one off event witnessed by no one and reliant merely on the testimony of the complainant versus the dog owner?

 

[silverclaws]

Laws although they might be the civilised approach, in practice are not a lot of use for the majority, as others have said the process of law from complaint to prosecution is an arduous one, which undoubtedly costs money and the CPS with their attitude of pursuing something only if they think they can win is a big hurdle for many, which basically means whatever laws we have, really they are of no use, so there is no point in relying on them.

So if laws are a fecking waste of time for the majority what else is there, erm, here's an idea, why don't we start being civilised with each other instead of running off to tell authority all the time. You now most people are reasonable whence they get passed their initial emotion, most are open to reason through calm unthreatening discussion.

At one time Britain was known for being polite, fair and courteous, we can have that back if only we made the effort.

 

[Neil]

This is nothing to do with thought crimes. There are material facts.

That was in relation to this:-

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

In that scenario, there are no material facts, merely opinion and supposition.

A dog displayed aggression, or what could reasonably taken as such, towards someone.

That's not a material fact. That's an interpretation - an opinion. If it's not substantiated by anybody else, or by something like CCTV, or other general testimony that they've witnessed similar, it's merely "he said, she said".

There are thousands of examples out there, if you want to look for them, of convictions based on the 'perceptions' of victims.

That, there may be.

However, what I'm questioning is - the single opinion of one person, making a claim, not substantiated by anything more than merely their one-off opinion and testimony, not corroborated by any other evidence (ie other witness statements, CCTV, anything else...). And that person not being "special". If that's produced convictions under the Dangerous Dogs Act, then by all means, cite them.

Bottom line, take care not to let your dog display aggression to a person as a matter of course.

I suspect nobody is arguing against that point.

The point I am disputing, though, is just because there's something mentioned in law, doesn't mean in isolation, and by itself, it's in any way tenable to prosecute. Sure, on occasion, there's an extreme example or something exceptional - but in general practice, what stemmed from that original statement, right at the top that I'm drawing comment on, whilst maybe is the detail, doesn't mean it's possible to practically enforce.

Else what's to stop somebody with a dislike, or grudge, simply saying "That bloke over there ---> he was walking Rongo, and the dog looked at me funny, and I've never liked Mr Chicken-Caesar, I demand you have the dog put down, and Mr Chicken-Caesar pay me lots of thought-crime damages..."

My point was in relation to Stevo's scenario, where he already established his dog barked at the person who complained.

Even in IDB1's scenario, there is no 'thought crime' involved. The complainant in that case would put forward their fear of being bitten/attacked by a dog. Their side would attempt to identify the behaviour of the dog as the source of that fear, and attempt to argue the fear was reasonable.

And I'm sure the defence would argue the opposite.

Assuming there's nothing substantially more credible than the other take - I'm unconvinced without anything other than a claim of a dog barking, and somebody "thinking" they may be harmed, with no other evidence, history, claims, witnesses, statements, CCTV, etc...

Accepting all that, in that hypothetical scenario, you have one person claiming he / she "thought" something, and felt afraid, and another person probably denying it, and suggesting it's either all in their head, or they're inventing it - I don't get the innocent until proven guilty bit resulting in a trend of convictions.

Other scenarios, with tangible evidence, other witnesses, previous history, clear differences in credibility, I'll accept, but I don't believe rafts of people are in danger of being prosecuted and convicted purely because of what somebody else thinks

There are a number of material facts involved,

Such as?

and neither Stevo nor IDB1 added detail such as there being no other witnesses, etc.

The initial comment was merely saying if somebody "even... thinks"

As for your scenario, the court would decide whether there was a case for destroying the dog, and their decision would depend on a number of things.

It is unlikely they would be hearing a case where the basis of a complaint was the dislike of an owner, and a dog looking funny at someone.

The original suggestion, though, is purely that somebody just "thought" the dog may harm them?

Now if the person who held this grudge had your dog straining at the leash barking at them matters might be different.

Still, credibility and proof matters.

Innocence until proven guilty hasn't been totally assailed, yet.

All I'm saying - and I don't doubt what people are claiming is actually law, is that it's highly unlikely people get convicted, purely on uncorroborated "thoughts" - or if so, I'd expect a whole heap of precedence on bailli.org.

 

[highlandsflyer]

All I'm trying to suggest is that the "may" in "may be prosecuted" relies as much on other factors, as simply somebody making a complaint.

That goes for most cases resultant from a complaint by a member of the public. Common sense, and usually goes without saying.

 

[Neil]

Y'know.. even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead, you can report it and the owner may be prosecuted under the Dangerous Dog Act.

Size and breed makes no difference.

The owner 'may' be prosecuted.

I see no mention of there being no other witnesses, nor of no history of the dog in question acting in a way that may be perceived as threatening.

How come we are being corralled into this cyclical debate over a one off event witnessed by no one and reliant merely on the testimony of the complainant versus the dog owner?

Because all it mentions is that somebody may simply "think" they may be at risk of harm.

 

[IDB1]

All I'm trying to suggest is that the "may" in "may be prosecuted" relies as much on other factors, as simply somebody making a complaint.

That goes for most cases resultant from a complaint by a member of the public. Common sense, and usually goes without saying.

Yup.

 

[highlandsflyer]

'even if you think a dog may bite you (or your children, if any are with you), even if it is on a lead'...

...hardly constitutes a 'dangerously out of control' dog now does it?

I have been on the receiving end of a malicious complaint about one of our dogs when I remonstrated with a woman who was walking her dog on one of those extending leads, allowing it to crap in my driveway whilst she stood 10' away pretending she didn't know what it was doing. Our Great Dane came running down the drive to see what the fuss was all about and barked at her when she started shouting at me (he was too much of a wuss to actually leave the driveway!)...

...the next thing we knew we had two Coppers standing in our kitchen lecturing me on responsible dog ownership!

I very politely asked them to leave...

...the CPS can be a very useful organisation when it works

You can't see anything here that would be considered a material fact?

Perhaps you need to think about where you are getting your interpretations and opinions of the legal system from!