Seizure of Dog under Section 5(1)(c) of the Dangerous Dogs Act

[3guesses]

If the police seize a dog under section 5(1)(c) of the Dangerous Dogs Act and the owner considers the seizure to be unlawful (ie the dog was not "dangerously out of control" at the time of the seizure), what is the best course of action to force the release of the dog by the police?

[des8]

So the dog was seized as being of type of a band breed.
The authorities have to prepare a file for submission to CPS who eventually decide whether or not to prosecute for a criminal offence.
They take their time... could be months before they make a decision, during which time "Rover" stays in jail.
At the trial the owner defends.
The magistrates decide: freedom/destruction/ (of Rover, not the owner)
You might find this site helpful https://deednotbreed.org.uk/index.ph...-act-section-1

Good luck

[Kati]

Section 5 of legislation - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/5

5 (1) (c) is seizure of a dog that is deemed 'dangerously out of control' ... was the dog on a lead? Did it act aggressively? What exactly have you been told about the seizure?

[3guesses]

Section 5 of legislation - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1991/65/section/5

5 (1) (c) is seizure of a dog that is deemed 'dangerously out of control' ... was the dog on a lead? Did it act aggressively? What exactly have you been told about the seizure?

The dog was seized by police a week after an incident whereby a cyclist riding on the pavement rode into the dog and the dog reacted by grabbing hold of the cyclist's leg for 5-10 seconds (minimal damage caused). The dog was on the lead at the time of the incident as well as at the time of the seizure a week later. Section 5(1)(c) states that the power of seizure is granted if the dog IS "dangerously out of control", not WAS "dangerously out of control" at some arbitrary point in the past. The dog was arguably not "dangerously out of control" at the time of the incident (a week prior to the seizure), and more crucially most definitely was not "dangerously out of control" at the time of the seizure, hence the criteria of section 5(1)(c) was not satisfied and the seizure was therefore unlawful. My reading of that particular piece of legislation is to give police the power to take control of a dog that is, for example, running around off the lead biting people - using it to seize a dog that bit someone a week ago (when provoked) is an abuse of power, I would say.

What is of greatest importance at this point is the best way of challenging this seizure and ensuring the return of the dog to the owner.

[Kati]

Have the police given the owner any more information at all? Are they going to be testing the dog to determine it's breed? Does the owner know where their pet is being kept? Sorry ... I know it seems all I'm doing is asking questions ATM, but the answers make it easier to help

Tagging Ghostfriend ... she might have advice too

[Ghostfriend]

You need the advice of a good solicitor who specialises in dog law. There are a few, but I have heard good reports about this one: https://wheldonlaw.co.uk/dog-law-solicitors/

[Kati]

out of interest 3guesses ... what type of dog is it??

[3guesses]

Have the police given the owner any more information at all? Are they going to be testing the dog to determine it's breed? Does the owner know where their pet is being kept? Sorry ... I know it seems all I'm doing is asking questions ATM, but the answers make it easier to help

Tagging Ghostfriend ... she might have advice too

No, the owner has not been given any more information, I don't think there re any concerns about the breed (Staffordshire Bull Terrier), but the police will not let the owner know where the dog is being kept or to have any contact with it.

[3guesses]

Addendum: The incident in question occurred at the beginning of November 2017 (more than 6 months ago) and section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 sets a time limit of 6 months for cases to be brought before it. As such, is it the case that the police cannot now charge the owner with having a dog dangerously out of contro? If so, does it not then follow that the police now have absolutely no legitimate grounds or rights to continue detaining the dog?

[Kati]

I don't think there re any concerns about the breed (Staffordshire Bull Terrier), but the police will not let the owner know where the dog is being kept or to have any contact with it.

you need to get the owner to ask the police to confirm whether or not they are holding the dog under BSL laws/regs too (many forces automatically do this for any suspected 'bull' breed dog regardless of pedigree/paperwork) ... if so, they will have to get an expert to measure the dog to ascertain if it conforms to type before continuing with anything.

I do agree with Ghostfriend ... it may be better for the owner to seek specific legal advice (and if anyone knows their 'animal law' firms then it is her )

[3guesses]

OK, thanks.

So no answer on challenging the seizure other than to engage a specialist solicitor?

And no answer on whether or not S127 of the Magistrates' Court Act applies to S3(3) and S3(4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act?

[Kati]

The owner needs to find out if the police have decided to test the dog under bsl rules ... if so then any challenge will need to take that into account.

A formal complaint to the police about their not being kept informed could result in the police telling the owner where the dog is being kept, but until the owner knows exactly why the dog is being held there would probably not be much progress apart from that. The owner will not be permitted to see the dog while it is being detained.

[Kati]

no answer on whether or not S127 of the Magistrates' Court Act applies to S3(3) and S3(4) of the Dangerous Dogs Act?

unfortunately this would not apply ... the police would say that they have seized the dog after obtaining information regarding an incident (possibly due to a complaint by the other party?). As such, they would have 6mths to take it to court after detaining the animal/being told about an incident. They will probably use as much of that time as possible in order to ascertain how likely they are to get a 'conviction'

[des8]

You might like to consider making an application under Sec 127 of The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/section/59) to return unlawfully seized property.

[Kati]

You might like to consider making an application under Sec 127 of The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/16/section/59) to return unlawfully seized property.

although I'm doubtful that will work (see my previous posts) ... the police will likely be looking to test the dog to see if it fits the 'type' for BSL as there has been an incident (post #4). As such they will argue that the seizure is necessary/not unlawful at this time