A GUIDE dog owner has slammed a police force for its inaction over an incident when her guide dog was attacked by another dog whilst working. Despite strong evidence and an admission of guilt from the other dogs owner, the police decided that it was not a serious enough attack for a first offence to pursue the matter, whilst a senior officer implied that to prosecute under either the Dogs Act 1871 or even the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act could be seen as using the law unfairly to favour a blind person.
Christine Cheal from Hooe, Plymouth is registered blind
and is a Guide Dog owner. Her guide dog, black labrador
Monty was attacked by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier
whilst she was working him in-harness in Plymouth city centre
one day in October last year.
The other dog was on a lead but its female owner had difficulty
pulling the dog away from Monty, until members of the public
helped out. Christine fell to the ground in the struggle.
Luckily, neither she nor Monty was physically injured but
this was only the beginning of her problems. When she and
her sighted husband Brian later attempted to make a perfectly
legitimate complaint to Devon and Cornwall police to take
some kind of action against the SBTs owner they were
met with official stonewalling of the worst
kind.
"We have subsequently experienced extraordinary difficulty
in getting the police to take action against the owner of
the dog - let alone use the powers available to them contained
in the various pieces of dog control legislation,"
Brian Cheal told OUR DOGS. "Their reluctance is largely
based on the grounds that no one was injured. It looks as
though they might take action by advising the owner to keep
her dog under better control, but this has only been achieved
by making repeated phone calls, finding the name and address
of the dog owner ourselves and finally making a verbal complaint.
"Over three months has now passed since the incident
occurred. The same un-muzzled dog and the owner continue
to come to the city centre even now. We have been told that
the action the police will take will be in the form of an
official warning and not as my wife would prefer, a magistrates
Court Order under the terms of the current Acts, to have
the dog muzzled in public and possibly excluded from the
city shopping centre."
Brian contacted the Environmental Health Department at Plymouth
City Council and spoke to Alistair Cunningham the Dog Warden
line manager who was very sympathetic but explained that
their powers are very limited with regard to seeking exclusion
orders for dogs. Mr Cunningham said he would write to the
owner of the dog and also offered to liaise with the police
in future should a similar incident occur.
Mr Cheal adds: "It was interesting talking to the manager.
It does seem that the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act is a blunt
instrument when dealing with cases where there is minimal
or no personal injury. This, and other factors explain the
reluctance of the police to use it except in extreme cases.
We had a case reported in our local paper recently where
a 12 year-old girl was knocked off her bicycle when she
collided with an off-the-lead Rottweiler.
The case was taken to court for a Control Order to be placed
on the dog but just before it reached court the owners of
the dog had the dog put down. The case took 12 months to
come to court. According to the manager, this is very common,
dog owners will then tell everybody - 'look what the council/police
made us do etc'."
It is understood that Plymouth City Council, in recognising
there was a problem some time ago, had approached the Home
Office to include the control of dogs in the new Anti-Social
Behaviour Order legislation. These new measures would require
a lower burden of proof and would be more low-key than DDA
or 1871 Dogs Act cases, but Home Office officials declined
this.
OUR DOGS contacted Alistair Cunningham who said: "On
the whole have a good rapport with the police and work closely
with them on dog matters. I cannot comment on why Devon
and Cornwall police took the action they did in this case,
as that is a matter for them."
After contacting The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association
for help with chasing up their complaint at police inaction,
the Cheals were advised to write to Maria Wallis the Chief
Constable for Devon & Cornwall police, and also to DEFRA,
who are responsible for dog control legislation.
Brian Cheal listed a number of key points in his letters
which he asked the Chief Constable and DEFRA to consider:
With regard to how the incident was dealt with by Plymouth
police a number of issues still cause concern: -
1) No one came to see my wife; indeed, no one has spoken
to her at any time in spite of my requests to do so.
2) Some officers were under the impression the incident
was a Plymouth city Council responsibility.
3) There has still been no adequate explanation why a charge
under the terms of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act was not considered.
It is abundantly clear in the act "for the avoidance
of any doubt
.etc (section 5)" that a person
does not have to be injured for a control order to be applied
for and that specific measures such as muzzling and/or exclusion
from certain areas can be applied for (my underlining).
4) There were witnesses to the incident that were not followed
up by the police.
5) After officers had visited the owner of the dog in late
October, the report we received from an officer included
comments that the owner of the dog was a responsible dog
owner. The officer appeared to endorse this view. Indeed,
the owner of the dog told officers that after the incident
she had made the decision to muzzle the dog in public. This
was untrue. I had personally seen the owner with unmuzzled
dog in the city centre some 2 months after the incident
and had reported this to the police in early October.
6) I had repeatedly told officers dealing with the case
that my wife wanted the dog excluded from the city centre.
Given that the owner of the dog had difficulty holding/pulling
the dog away, it remains unclear if officers expressed this
desire (for exclusion of the dog from the city centre) to
the owner of the dog and her subsequent willingness to comply.
My wife remains concerned that, should the owner with dog
continue coming to the city centre, even if the dog is now
muzzled, my wife remains dependent for her safety (and the
continued willingness of her dog, Monty, to work) on the
good eyesight and alertness of the dog owner. It is our
view that a responsible dog owner, knowing their dog is
predictably aggressive with other dogs (as it is clear from
other sources this is the case), would not bring their dog
to a busy city centre where an unpredictable meeting with
another dog is likely to occur.
7) There appears to be a lack of awareness training for
officers on the special needs of guide dog/assistance owners.
Chief Constable Wallis did not reply, but a Supt. Pavey
sent a brief acknowledgement to Mr and Mrs Cheal and advised
them that the matter had been passed to an officer at their
local police station to deal with. The couple were subsequently
visited three weeks later by an Inspector Pope who discussed
the incident with them and attempted to explain why the
local police had not pursued the matter more vigorously.
One of the arguments advanced by Inspector Pope for the
reluctance of the police to take the action that Christine
Cheal requested i.e. muzzling the offending dog and
excluding it from the city centre under the terms of the
DDA - was that the Act had to be applied equally to all
UK citizens otherwise they (the police) might be in breach
of the EU Human Rights Act if 'special treatment' were allowed
for a blind person. He also stated that it was 'normal'
procedure for the police not to take action if a person
was not injured - in spite of the fact that Section 3 of
the DDA is quite specific that a person need only be in
fear of attack or apprehensive for the law to
be applied, as indeed it has been in numerous other DDA
and 1871 cases. According the Mr Cheal, Inspector Pope also
suggested that it would be usual for the police to gather
evidence of other incidents relating to the dog in question
and that "magistrates would be reluctant to convict
for a first offence".
Again, this is complete nonsense and does not hold up to
numerous similar cases where dogs have been convicted for
first offences or where there is a total lack of evidence
suggesting that the dog has a history of aggression.
Brian Cheal adds: "My gut feeling is that this is yet
more obfuscation and yet another 'reason' for not enforcing
the law. I think the law could me more explicit but it is
obvious to Christine and I that the both police and magistrates
are in urgent need of awareness training and unequivocal
guidelines on how to interpret the law in relation to guide
dog owners. This can only come from Government. Guide dogs
should be recognised in law in relation not only to dangerous
dogs but also nuisance dogs. 'Lower' level incidents where
neither the guide dog owner or guide dog are injured but
where an attack or interference takes place can be very
distressing to both guide dog owner and dog.
"Recently a new law has been applied in 18 American
States where particular attention is given to attacks on
working guide dogs and the law is quite specific that such
an incident on a working animal is treated very seriously.
Christine would like a situation whereby, when such incidents
are reported, they are acted upon immediately by the police,
with the close co-operation of Local Authority Dog wardens.
Having to push the authorities to take action every time
an incident occurs is wholly unacceptable."
Philip Alder of DEFRAs Animal Division wrote back
to Mr Cheal expressing his sympathy and concern for the
attack on Monty and hoping that he and Christine had both
made a full recovery from the incident.
In answer to Mr Cheals question as to whether there
was any supplementary guidance issued to the police and
magistrates on dealing with attacks on working Guide Dogs,
and if not whether there are any plans to address this,
Mr Alder replied that a significant amount of guidance had
been issued to the police and the courts since the 1991
Dangerous Dogs Act was implemented, the intention of that
guidance being to assist the police and the courts in understanding
and using the legislation effectively.
"The legislation applies equally to any owner/keeper
whose dog may have become dangerously out of control,"
wrote Mr Alder. " The application of the legislation
to individual cases must be down to the police, the Crown
Prosecution Service and the courts."
Mr Alder continued: "I can assure you that we take
any attack by a dog on a person or other dog seriously.
There are already a number of pieces of legislation which
address the issue of control of dogs. Section 3 of the 1991
Dangerous Dogs Act (as amended 1997) gives protection to
the public from a dog of any type or breed which is dangerously
out of control in a public place, or in a private place
where it has no right to be. A dog is regarded as being
dangerously out of control in a public place on any occasion
on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that
it will injure a person, whether or not it actually does
so. The court has the power to impose a muzzling order on
a dog of any type which it judges actually or potentially
dangerous
.
"The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 makes it a criminal
offence to allow an unmuzzled ferocious dog to be off a
lead in a street, park or open space in most areas or to
allow any dog to attack or menace any person or animal.
"Under the Dogs Act 1871, any person may make a complaint
to a magistrates court that a dog is dangerous, or
report the matter to the police. The 1871 Act allows magistrates,
in a wide range of appropriate circumstances, either to
order the destruction of dangerous dogs or impose alternative
controls on them."
Mr Alder went on to state that, as a matter of course DEFRA
constantly reviewed their legislation and would always consider
suggestions for amending those laws.
Clearly, there appears to be a disparity in how individual
police forces enact the various pieces of dog control legislation
at local level and how seriously they view incidents such
as the attack on Mrs Cheals guide dog by another dog.
This point is echoed by Jill Allen-King, MBE, the Chair
of the European Blind Union Commission on Mobility and Guide
Dogs who has experienced similar problems herself over the
years.
"The whole incident is appaling," said Mrs Allen-King.
"And any dog attack is bad enough. Ive had five
guide dogs myself and have had problems with so many dogs
that have been allowed to wander of stray on their own,
My first guide dog was pestered for 10 years by a neighbours
dog and this can really un-nerve you and cause you to lose
confidence with the work you do with your dog.
"Some people walk very close to you with their yappy
dogs and this is so unnecessary. My third guide dog was
taken out of service after three years because another dog
attacked her. If ever another dog came near her afterwards,
she was aggressive to them, which is no good for a working
guide dog, so she had to be withdrawn by the GDBA. Most
dog owners are responsible people, but some people just
dont care and let their dogs roam."
Mrs Allen-King continues: "We expect support from the
police and dog wardens. I have chaired the Committee on
Mobility and Guide Dogs and I know David Blunkett the Home
Secretary. If anyone should understand these issues, he
should, having a guide dog himself.
Pavement laws have been made thanks to our deliberations,
but it is then up to each Chief Constable to decide which
laws to implement in his or her county. Thats total
nonsense. ALL laws should be enforced. To take an example,
cycling is illegal on footpaths, but not all police forces
enforce that law
. Its down to Chief Constables
to enforce it or not. It certainly isnt due to a lack
of manpower or lack of resources, its how those resources
are used and that decision is taken at local level."
Brian and Christine Cheal, meanwhile, still feel aggrieved
that their experience has been stonewalled by
officialdom. However, it has not soured their feelings towards
other dogs in general, and they maintain a positive outlook
to the fact that most dog owners are responsible and manage
to control their dogs adequately.
"Other dog owners have largely been immensely sympathetic
to Christine," says Mr Cheal. "We live in an area
where people come from all over the city to run their dogs
and Christine and Monty seldom have any problems in this
respect. The same goes for when she is working Monty. Most
dog owners know to keep their dogs from approaching them
at this time.
"Since the attack Monty was quite nervous of other
dogs when he was working and in harness. During this time
Christine used to drop the harness and allow him to greet
another friendly dog - she would first ask the owner if
the dog was okay with other dogs- if the opportunity arose,
to reinforce that not all dogs he met whilst in harness
were aggressive. This seems to have worked.
"Unfortunately, not everyone has such a responsible
attitude and it is ludicrous for the police to decide that
they will not enforce a particular law simply because they
think it might cause them a bit of bother to do so. But
it seems that other dog on dog incidents are prosecuted
elsewhere with vigour. Perhaps some consistency of approach
from the police would be a good idea?"
Devon and Cornwall police have issued no official comment
on the matter.