Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!

Changes to the DDA

SCT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
948
#3
OK, so many views and no one has an opinion on the biggest change in 23 years?

Just in case you're not aware ...........

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014
Anyone who knocks on my door gets treated to the unique experience of 2 Malinois heading towards the door at full speed, making a lot of noise and ready to bite :) The substitution of “a public place†with “any place in England or Wales (whether or not a public place)†is ridiculous and just another encroachment on the rights and privacy of people in their own homes and on their own property and would mean that both my Mali's would be dangerous dogs under the definition as they scare the shit out of anyone that comes to my door.

It is just another example of the nanny state rulemaking without direct knowledge of the subject
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#4
Ah now see, a man of research and understanding hasn't got to grips with all the changes. The House Keeper clause replaces private property but only in relation to trespassers. If they're invited guests, or persons going about their business then you're right, public place no longer applies and you're culpable. If someone is trespassing on your property (and it says dwelling so your garden shed doesn't count) then they'll get the good news from your 84 daggers and not a peep you'll hear from the police.
 

SCT

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,945
Likes
948
#5
Ah now see, a man of research and understanding hasn't got to grips with all the changes. The House Keeper clause replaces private property but only in relation to trespassers. If they're invited guests, or persons going about their business than you're right, public place no longer applies and you're culpable. If someone is trespassing on your property (and it says dwelling so your garden shed doesn't count) then they'll get the good news from your 84 daggers and not a prep you'll hear from the police.
Au contraire mon frere. I understood it and I wasn't worried about trespassers. What concerns me is that an asshole with a legitimate reason to be at the door could report your dog as a dangerous dog.
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#6
I don't think fear from injury when in your own home and Mr Postman decides to wind your dog up counts.
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#8
Ah yes, the Daily Mail. The last bastion of truth and factual reporting!

I think there will some interesting precedents set from these changes.
 

nonkinetic

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
81
Likes
0
#9
The new act describes that a person ( the dog owner and householder) is not guilty of an offence in a case where the dog is dangerously out of control in a building and the person who is injured is a trespasser and is in or entering the building as a trespasser. Please note this exemption doesn't apply to a trespasser who is leaving your building.
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#10
The term building is defined as a dwelling, therefore you shouldn't just read 'any' building. And surely the term leaving doesn't have any bearing, as to leave, the trespasser must be in, and therefore the exemption stands.
 

nonkinetic

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
81
Likes
0
#11
the dog can be dangerously out of control while in, or partly in a building or part of a building, that is a dwelling ( or is forces accommodation), or both.

And the exemption applies to a person who is in, or is entering the building, or part as a trespasser…..

The term " to leave" a building has significant bearing in that every trespasser that gets chewed on will claim they were leaving the building, they will claim that they weren't in it or in a part of it and they were not entering it….it is their mechanism to get at the dog owner and a weakness in the revised act, in my view.
 

nonkinetic

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
81
Likes
0
#12
Another issue in the revised act is the temperament test. This now includes dog and owner temperament, note the word AND.

If the dog has a nice temperament but the owner fails the attitude test then the dog can be destroyed.
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#13
Surely the argument is where the act took place? If it was in (or part thereof) then it doesn't matter whether the trespasser claims to be leaving or doing a jig! If the trespasser has made it into the garden, then that's a different story.
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#14
Another issue in the revised act is the temperament test. This now includes dog and owner temperament, note the word AND.

If the dog has a nice temperament but the owner fails the attitude test then the dog can be destroyed.
But that's been highlighted as an area where a contingent destruction order would more likely be issued.
 

nonkinetic

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
81
Likes
0
#15
Surely the argument is where the act took place? If it was in (or part thereof) then it doesn't matter whether the trespasser claims to be leaving or doing a jig! If the trespasser has made it into the garden, then that's a different story.
The argument is where one can prove an act took place and if it were an exempted act.

Trespassers will claim they were leaving, because the exemption doesn't cover this.

My visual is a trespasser leaving a building through a window…they aren't in the building, they aren't entering the building and if they were inside taking a dump, they are going to claim they were leaving because, lets face it, that is what they will do because it is a weakness in the revised act, in my view.
 

nonkinetic

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
81
Likes
0
#16
S If the trespasser has made it into the garden, then that's a different story.
This is the point….a trespasser can be in the garden, approaching a dwelling about to enter into it and get chomped on….all he has to do is to claim he was leaving……and the exemption doesn't apply.
 

aes69

Super Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
913
Likes
547
#17
I think you're over complicating your view of the Act because you don't see the word 'leaving' in it.

If the the trespasser is in the dwelling, by the terms of the Act, it doesn't matter what the intention of the trespasser is. If they have no legal right or authority, implied or other, once they are in the building, the owner is exempt. The wording 'entering' was added to extend the act for those part through a window or door to remove any doubt about being in or out. (according to legal counsel - I do have the chaps name just not with me, I'll post later today). A garden, a shed, a garage at the bottom of the garden are not buildings or parts there of within the Act.
 

nonkinetic

Full Registered User
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
81
Likes
0
#20
I've a selection of notes prepared by legal counsel if you want a copy of them.
thanks….I have some notes by Trevor Cooper ( solicitor) if thats the ones you are referring to, if not, I would be interested.

thank you.
 
Top Bottom