Our cat has just been killed by a dog

[AdiT]

As I understand it, in England (and there's nothing in any of the links to contradict this) "under control" isn't defined as "on a lead". The definition of under control would have to be argued in court.

The only places being on a lead is mentioned is in the Road Traffic Act(which states dogs must be on a lead when on a designated road) and areas where a Public Space Protection Order is in place (even then it may not be stipulated for that particular place). In both cases they state "dogs must be on a lead" rather than "dogs must be under control"

Also I think councils have to specify with a PSPO or by-law areas where leads ARE required rather than the other way around as implied earlier.

Note; I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, just how I understand the situation...

[james7]

AdiT said:

As I understand it, in England (and there's nothing in any of the links to contradict this) "under control" isn't defined as "on a lead". The definition of under control would have to be argued in court.

The only places being on a lead is mentioned is in the Road Traffic Act(which states dogs must be on a lead when on a designated road) and areas where a Public Space Protection Order is in place (even then it may not be stipulated for that particular place). In both cases they state "dogs must be on a lead" rather than "dogs must be under control"

Also I think councils have to specify with a PSPO or by-law areas where leads ARE required rather than the other way around as implied earlier.

Note; I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, just how I understand the situation...

This sounds familiar from a conversation I had with a dog warden a while ago. But I could not recall the details etc! Old age creeping in

[ali_kat]

AdiT said:

As I understand it, in England (and there's nothing in any of the links to contradict this) "under control" isn't defined as "on a lead". The definition of under control would have to be argued in court.

The only places being on a lead is mentioned is in the Road Traffic Act(which states dogs must be on a lead when on a designated road) and areas where a Public Space Protection Order is in place (even then it may not be stipulated for that particular place). In both cases they state "dogs must be on a lead" rather than "dogs must be under control"

Also I think councils have to specify with a PSPO or by-law areas where leads ARE required rather than the other way around as implied earlier.

Note; I'm not saying this is a good or bad thing, just how I understand the situation...

Agreed, in fact I said… “It isn't necessary for dogs to be leashed at all times. However, dogs must be kept on a lead in designated pedestrian zones and on land where livestock is present. Councils have bye-laws to indicate areas where leashing is required, such as in public parks.”

james7 said:

.

Please, forgive me profusely for trying to help you and answer your question – trust me; I will NEVER make the same mistake again for you

[AdiT]

ali_kat said:

...dogs MUST be kept on a lead in designated pedestrian zones and on land where livestock is present...

Where does that information come from? Is it just good advise (which it undoubtedly is) or actual law in England and Wales?

[Mexican cuties]

Op how are you and the family

[ali_kat]

AdiT said:

ali_kat said:

...dogs MUST be kept on a lead in designated pedestrian zones and on land where livestock is present...

Where does that information come from? Is it just good advise (which it undoubtedly is) or actual law in England and Wales?

Don't hate me for my sources... it was paraphrased from here - https://www.eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/#LAWFAQ2...

[toohangry]

ali_kat said:

AdiT said:

ali_kat said:

...dogs MUST be kept on a lead in designated pedestrian zones and on land where livestock is present...

Where does that information come from? Is it just good advise (which it undoubtedly is) or actual law in England and Wales?

Don't hate me for my sources... it was paraphrased from here - https://www.eta.co.uk/cycling-and-the-law/#LAWFAQ2...

[ali_kat]

It might be a cycling thing, but it's been written by English law firm

(BTW - they also note that "A dog is considered ‘under control’ if it is on a lead held by someone able to control it" I missed that! )

[toohangry]

The cynic in me suspects that you've had to look long and hard to find a page that says what you want it to and have ended up referencing a page on cycling from an insurance company as the final word in Law! Google 'confirmation bias'.

That's just the cynic though.

[ali_kat]

Cynic - if I'd done that I'd have used it yesterday just to shut James7 up

[AdiT]

That does say "should" and not "must" (which you wrote) or "required to be" which would indiacte it's advice rather than law and "considered under control when on a lead" doesn't exclude dogs being under control that aren't leashed (though I think you'd have to be confident of displaying that level of training to a court).

Note, I'm only curious as to the actual law and not trying to score points here.

[toohangry]

AdiT said:

Note, I'm only curious as to the actual law and not trying to score points here.

Same.

Can we just draw a line under this now? It's pretty clear that none of us know the exact law on this. Ali_kat, bless her, is desperately fighting her corner to try and prove that something illegal has happened but it's become very clear that she is just trying to find some facts to fit her opinion and, on the whole, failing. The rest of us are just asking the same questions and I think it's clear now that no-one on here has the knowledge that we're looking for.

To summarise:

It's extremely sad that this incident happened.

It definitely should NOT have happened and the dog should have been leashed.

We are none the wiser whether an actual law has been broken though.

[ali_kat]

Hold on a cotton picking minute! I’m NOT trying prove that something illegal has happened, just that the Dog owner was in the wrong as the dog wasn’t under control

ali_kat said:

The only point I have is that the dog shouldn't have been in the garden. I haven't said the dog was dangerously out of control (despite what TooHangry tries to imply) just that it wasn't under control - it should have been leashed

ali_kat said:

All I have stated about the case in hand is that the dog should not have been off the lead & in someone else's garden (private property) killing that person's cat.

The dog wasn’t under any kind of control, and we all agree it should have been leashed! (well apart from Andy)

A dog DOES have to be under control in public. The debate is defining the whole under control bit, after I tried to answer your question.

I never said it was dangerously out of control – that was you putting words in my mouth because of the way that the .Gov.uk law is written. However

GOV.UK Law said:

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply:

• it attacks someone’s animal
• the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

Edited rather than quoted! Doh!

Edited by ali_kat on Wednesday 29th July 14:22

[toohangry]

ali_kat said:

Hold on a cotton picking minute! I’m NOT trying prove that something illegal has happened

Yet:

ali_kat said:

the dog wasn't under control and entered private property. That's against the law in the whole of the UK.

[ali_kat]

toohangry said:

ali_kat said:

Hold on a cotton picking minute! I’m NOT trying prove that something illegal has happened

Yet:

ali_kat said:

the dog wasn't under control and entered private property. That's against the law in the whole of the UK.

Oh, so the dog WAS under control when it entered private property and killed a cat?

[toohangry]

Give it a rest Ali-kat. You're being totally illogical.

As I said, I think a line should be drawn under this as none of us know the actual letter of the law on this, you included. And why would we? I can tell you're not a legal, I'm not either and I think only one has commented on the thread so far to say he wasn't sure.

[ali_kat]

toohangry said:

Give it a rest Ali-kat. You're being totally illogical.

Illogical?

It wasn't leashed, it wasn't under any other form of control - we agree that

GOV.UK Law said:

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply:

• it attacks someone’s animal
• the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

GOV.UK Law said:

It’s against the law to let a dog be dangerously out of control anywhere, such as:
in a public place
in a private place, eg a neighbour’s house or garden
in the owner’s home

That's logical and the UK law (especially English )

[toohangry]

Yesterday you were busy trying to say it was me implying you said it was 'dangerously out of control' and that you'd never said it or implied it and now you 're very clearly saying it. Why's that? Is it because you've now found a site that backs you up?

This is why it's pointless trying to debate this (and the fox topic) with you - you change your stance slightly each post to try and 'win'.

You haven't and no-one thinks you have except you.

[ali_kat]

toohangry said:

I think only one has commented on the thread so far to say he wasn't sure.

J&J says 'may be out of date', unless a new law is written few things go 'out of date' in law, thats why they dredge through old cases for obscure points of reference.

Jasandjules said:

A dog which attacks something whilst off lead in a public place is quite likely to be deemed as "out of control".

A dog which kills a cat in a public place is highly likely to be deemed out of control, whether on lead or not.

However, a dog off lead that does anything wrong, the general approach is that it is out of control. If it were in control it would not attack/do what it did.

I've not looked at this area of law for a while now, so my recollection may be out of date as to the application.

[ali_kat]

toohangry said:

Yesterday you were busy trying to say it was me implying you said it was 'dangerously out of control' and that you'd never said it or implied it and now you 're very clearly saying it. Why's that? Is it because you've now found a site that backs you up?

This is why it's pointless trying to debate this (and the fox topic) with you - you change your stance slightly each post to try and 'win'.

You haven't and no-one thinks you have except you.

I haven't said it was, I've said it wasn't under control, personally I don't think the dog was dangerous (to anything other than the poor cat)

The Law says it was dangerously out of control.

A site that backs me up? You mean the Law I've been quoting all along?

I don't change my stance, I unravel my words from your twists