Offences Involving Domestic and Captive Animals
Code for Crown Prosecutors - Considerations
A prosecution may not be required where there has been minimal risk to public safety and/or to the welfare of an animal.
An animal which is in the ownership of a person may be classed as an item of property <refer to Animals as Property, below in this section>. In those circumstances the public interest criteria relating to the prosecution of offences for dishonesty and damage to property become relevant.
The Law
Animals in General
It is a summary offence to cruelly beat, kick, ill-treat, over-ride, over-load, torture, infuriate or terrify any domestic or captive animal; or, being the owner, permit any such animal to be so used or permit any unnecessary suffering to be so caused to any such animal. S.1(1)a of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 <Stones 8-811>.
Cruelty to an animal means “causing unnecessary suffering” and subsections 1(1)(b)-(f) contain further instances of behaviour towards animals that amount to offences of cruelty.
It is a summary offence to cause, procure or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal, whether domestic or captive; or to use, or permit to be used, any premises for such a purpose - S.1(1)(c) Protection of Animals Act 1911; or to be present, without reasonable excuse, at such an animal fight - S.5A; or to publish, or cause to be published, an advertisement for a fight between animals, S.5B. <Stones 8-815/816>.
It is a summary offence for any person who is the owner or has charge or control of any domestic or captive animal to abandon it in circumstances likely to cause it any unnecessary suffering - S.1 Abandonment of Animals Act 1960 <Stones 8-1190>
It is a summary offence to mutilate, kick, beat, nail or otherwise impale, stab, stone, crush, drown, drag or asphyxiate any wild mammal with intent to inflict unnecessary suffering - S.1 Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. <Stones 8-1520>. <refer to Wildlife Conservation, elsewhere in this guidance>.
It is a summary offence for a person to be in possession of an instrument or appliance designed or adapted for use in connection with the fighting of any domestic fowl - S.1 Cockfighting Act 1952. <Stones 8-1140>.
Dogs
The person in charge of a dog who attacks or chases livestock commits a summary offence - S.1 Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. <Stones 8-7532>
It is a summary offence for a person to use, or permit the use of, a guard dog to protect any premises unless a handler capable of controlling the dog is also present and the dog is under his control, or unless the dog is secured so that it is not at liberty to go freely about the premises - S.1 Guard Dogs Act 1975. <Stones 8-7591>
Where a dog defecates on land designated under the Act by a local authority, the person (other than a registered blind person) in charge of the dog commits a summary offence if he fails to remove the faeces forthwith; S.3 Dogs (Fouling of Land Act) 1996. <Stones 8-26731>
Dangerous Dogs
In a case which involves a dangerous or ferocious dog a choice lies between an application by way of a civil complaint under of the Dogs Act 1871 <Stones 8-7510> for an Order for the control or destruction of a dog and a criminal prosecution under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 <Stones 8-7617>.
An application by way of complaint for an Order for the control or destruction of a dog under S.2 of the Dogs Act 1871 will arise if a dog is considered to be dangerous, and 'dangerous' should be given its ordinary everyday meaning. The Attorney General has formally assigned the conduct of proceedings under S.2 of the Dogs Act 1871 to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A civil complaint under S.2 of the 1871 Act need only be proved on a balance of probabilities. However, such an application also has the following disadvantages:
- an Order may only be made against a dog's owner, not its temporary keeper;
- S.9 Criminal Justice Act 1967 cannot be used to present evidence at trial;
- proceedings must be issued within six months and cannot be discontinued;
- costs are not available from central funds and the applicant risks costs being awarded against him in the event of failure.
Under S.3 of the 1991 Act, if a dog is dangerously out of control in a public place, or in a private place in which it is not permitted to be, so that there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person, and whether or not it actually does so, then the owner, or person for the time being in charge of the dog, is guilty of a summary offence. That offence becomes an aggravated offence, and triable either way, if the dog does injure any person while out of control. Prosecutions for the aggravated offence should be reserved for instances where serious injury has been caused.
Fighting Dogs
Section 1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 <Stones 8-7615> specifically controls dogs of the type known as:
- the pit bull terrier;
- the Japanese tosa;
- the dogo Argentina;
- the fila Braziliero.
In respect of each of those types of dog the section makes it a summary offence to:
- possess such a dog, except for purposes permitted by the Act;
- breed, or breed from, such a dog;
- sell or exchange such a dog, or advertise for such a purpose;
- give away such a dog as a gift, or advertise for such a purpose;
- allow such a dog to be in a public place without being muzzled and placed on a lead;
- abandon such a dog, or allow it to stray.
Courts will sometimes have to decide whether a particular dog falls within one of the stipulated types. The burden of proof is placed on the defendant to show that a dog which is the object of such proceedings is not of such a type. You should instruct an expert witness who should be asked to examine the dog and prepare a report dealing with both appearance and behaviour.
Assistance in locating a suitable expert may be obtained from:
- the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, The Causeway, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1HG; or
- the Kennel Club, 1-5 Clarges Street, Piccadilly, London W1Y 8AB; or
- The Secretary, The Staffordshire Bull Terrier Council, 5 Marlage Ashgill, Larkhall, ML9 3DJ.
Charging Practice
Every instance of cruel ill-treatment, etc., charged under S.1(1) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 creates a separate offence, but one summons may cover the ill treatment of several animals.
An animal can be classified as "property" or "goods" under the terms of the Theft Acts 1968 and 1978 and a prosecution may thus be appropriate for offences of theft, handling, obtaining property by deception or blackmail.
An animal may also be classed as property capable of being "damaged or destroyed" under the terms of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. A charge of criminal damage may be appropriate in the event of the death or injury of an animal owned by someone other than the defendant. However, prosecution for the cruel ill treatment of that same animal under S.1 Protection of Animals Act 1911 may also be appropriate.
In dangerous dogs offences, when considering whether to charge under 1871 or 1991 Act, appropriate matters to take into consideration are the disadvantages indicated above in this section to charges under the 1871 Act. If The CPS charges under 1871, we are then the informant.
Procedure - pre-trial
In order to institute proceedings under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) 1953 you must obtain written consent from
- the Chief Constable of Police;
- the owner of the livestock; or
- the owner of the land where the incident occurred.
Relations with Other Agencies
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (R.S.P.C.A.) has a long established expertise in both the investigation and prosecution of cases involving animal welfare and has built up a useful body of precedent and case law. General guidance may be obtained from the Head of Society Prosecutions, RSPCA, Wilberforce Way, Southwater, Horsham, West Sussex, RH13 9RS, telephone 0870 0101181.
Procedure - post-trial
Either offence under S.3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 may be punished by a fine and/or imprisonment (two years maximum for the aggravated offence); or by an order for the dog to be kept under proper control, or to be destroyed and/or to disqualify the offender from having custody of a dog for such period as the court sees fit.
An order for the destruction of the dog is, in most cases, mandatory following a conviction for the aggravated offence under the 1991 Act. If the defendant is only the keeper, then any known owner of the dog must be given notice of the hearing before an order for destruction is made.
Useful Links
Stones 8-811
Stones 8-815/816
Stones 8-1190
Stones 8-1520
Stones 8-1140
Stones 8-7532
Stones 8-7591
Stones 8-26731
Stones 8-7510
Stones 8-7617
Stones 8-7615
v1.1