Tougher sentences for dangerous dogs do not go far enough

There has been much interest in the media regarding the rising number of dog bite victims admitted to hospital. This follows extensive coverage in the national press after the death of John Paul Massey in 2009, as well as the year-on-year rise highlighted by a recent article in The Telegraph. Data from Hospital Episode statistics (HES) and the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) demonstrate that hospital admissions as a direct result of being bitten or struck by a dog has risen by almost a third in four years. The severity of these dog bite injuries also warrants consideration in light of the distinct mechanisms of injury.

Dog bites can be classified into ‘snap and release’, or ‘grip and retain’. It is this latter mechanism that is associated with increasing severity of injuries with dogs locking unto their victims and shaking them. According to Richard Milner, President of The British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive, and Aesthetic Surgeons (BAPRAS), ‘the really bad wounds that you occasionally see are caused by the dog being very aggressive and shaking and biting again’.

 Stricter laws for ‘dangerous dogs’ require urgent and immediate attention. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 currently prohibits any dog of the type ‘pit bull terrier’ or ‘Japanese tosa’ from being in a public place without being muzzled or kept on a leash. Under new Sentencing Council guidelines, which come into force in August 2012, the new advice for judges and magistrates aims to encourage the courts to use harsher sentences when dealing with dangerous dog offences. The offence will now have a starting point of six months in jail – and, where appropriate, judges are encouraged to consider up to 18 months imprisonment. Other breeds are subject to dog control orders enforced by the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, which make it an offence for a dog to be on public land without a lead.

As the vast majority of dog bites occur in the home, the ability of leash laws to minimise dog bites is questionable. It is not only pit bulls causing harm. Hence, it is necessary for laws to be brought into force, which protects the victim from dog bites in domestic settings. The Sentencing Council has broadened the definition of vulnerable victims to include children, the elderly, disabled, and blind or visually impaired people. It may be necessary for laws to protect such vulnerable groups from direct contact with dangerous dogs, even at home.