Case of the dangerous dog

I refer to the two letters to the editor which appeared in The Times on October 25 entitled Giving Dogs A Bad Name. As often happens, correspondents are apt to rush into print without first consulting the law on the subject and without having regard to all the facts of the case.

In this particular case the dog was not "a first-time offender" as a few weeks before it had bitten a lady neighbour and its owner was found guilty by the Court of Magistrates of not exercising control over his dog.

A few weeks later the same dog savaged a young boy who was attending a party at the owner's residence. The owners were again charged for the same offence before the Magistrates' Courts, pleaded guilty and, in addition to being fined, the court ordered the destruction of the dog in question.

Section 14 of the Dogs Act states that when an owner or keeper of a dog which is dangerous to persons, fails to keep the dog under control he shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine and the court shall order the police to destroy the dog at the expense of the owner or keeper. For the court to order the destruction of the dog, it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to prove that the owner knew that the dog was dangerous.

The law further states that a dog which has bitten or assaulted a person shall be considered dangerous, unless the contrary is proved. No such proof was tendered before the courts in this case as the owners pleaded guilty to the charge.

In view of the rigidity of the law in this respect, the Court of Criminal Appeal had its hands tied and had it not been for the agreement reached between the Attorney General, the accused and the injured party in the appeal stage, to confine this dog at a kennel, the dog's fate would have been as decreed by the Magistrates' Court.