The Price of Taking Dogs to Court

This is a tale of 2 friendly dogs whose owners appeared in different courts on the same day.  I was the expert witness for both, where the trials achieved not one ha’p’orth of benefit to society and the taxpayer paid dear.  In both cases, the police chose to apply the draconian powers given to them under the Dangerous Dogs Act when they would have better sorted the cases with a few minutes of intelligent tough talk.  This is about Tiggy, a tiny Jack Russell Terrier and Flake a brawny Pit Bull Terrier, both much loved family pets.

Tiggy has an idyllic life with his mistress “Om” and family in the south Surrey countryside.  A public bridle path runs through Om’s land and in December 2009 Tiggy was doing what Tiggy does best, sniffing for rabbits and squirrels along the banks of the bridleway.  A gentleman who evidently does not like dogs and is a JP, suddenly appeared and began making over-excited kick threats at little Tiggy.  Being a true Jack, Tiggy responded by yapping, darting in and out but never biting or causing injury to the stranger.  

He reported the incident to the police and the due process of law followed.  Om was charged with an offence under Section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act: having a dog “dangerously out of control”, even though there was no injury and the complainant could so easily have resolved the situation by just standing still and not goading Tiggy.

Ten months later, I am in Aldershot Magistrates Court as an expert witness on behaviour with expensive Bar Counsel.  A careful case preparation had been provided by local solicitors, all of this work being paid for by Tiggy’s unfortunate owner, Om.  Om could afford to meet these bills because, in her words “Tiggy is priceless”!  If Om were found guilty (and she was rightly advised to plead not guilty), she would have a criminal conviction that could have prevented her from running her Thai restaurant.  And who wants to have a varminty but charming Jack Russell which had done nothing wrong be the instrument for having a criminal record?

The stupidity of this prosecution by the Surrey Police was quickly apparent to the prosecutor, the Clerk and ultimately the 3 lay Magistrates.  A quick “deal” was negotiated which, so to speak, let the police and the Crown “off the hook” of this ill judged prosecution.  Om was advised to plead guilty to a lesser, civil complaint under the old 1871 Dogs Act.  This has the effect of a mild slap on the wrist, and the Magistrates just ordered that Tiggy be either muzzled or on a leash for 1 year when in public places.  Om has to pay £100 costs to the Crown, but all defence costs were ordered be paid from “central funds”.

I estimate the total tally of costs to be as follows:
Police time, to investigate, interview and prepare papers - £2,000
CPS costs - £2,000
Court costs - £1,000
Solicitors costs - £3,000
Barrister - £1,000
Defence expert (Roger Mugford) - £1,000

Total:    £10,000

And all of these costs are paid for by the hard-pressed taxpayers of this country, whose shiny new coalition government is apparently out to save money.

Flake is a fully registered, entirely legal Pit Bull Terrier, the family pet of Christine Chapman.   Flake practised an uncanny knack of escaping from Christine’s suburban garden in Harrow, Middlesex.  He would climb or jump 6’ fences, seemingly to meet up with his best friend, a Staffordshire Bull Terrier 3 gardens away.  Flake scaled 1, 2 and 3 fences with lightening speed, chat up the Staffie then return home before Christine knew about it.  The neighbours (but not Christine) had noticed Flake’s escapades, but none of them warned Christine what was happening.  Rather, they called the police.  

The exemption provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act require that a Pit Bull Terrier must be on a muzzle and lead at all times outside the owner’s home.  By escaping, Flake created an offence for Christine under the 1997 Dangerous Dogs Amendment Act.  But Christine is otherwise of good character, she responsibly insures her dog, picked up the poops in the park and everyone who knows Flake loves him.  But his escapology threatened him with being ordered destroyed by order of the Magistrates.  Flake was seized by 9 Metropolitan Policemen and held at considerable public expense in civilian kennels for 7 months.  A guide cost is that Flake cost the taxpayer £15/day: so total kennel costs £3000.  Expensive police interviews and prosecution papers were then prepared and matters brought before the Harrow Magistrates on Friday 1st October.

It was a 2 day trial before 3 lay Magistrates, with dog specialist Barrister Pam Rose defending and myself providing expert evidence of Flake’s good character.  Flake had been brought to our Behaviour Centre in June and despite his 4 months of incarceration, was an utterly delightful dog and in good shape.

Christine pleaded not guilty because at no stage was she informed by her neighbours or even the police that her dog had been escaping into neighbours’ back gardens and causing them annoyance.  She believed that when Flake was in the garden, he was safe and well.  At most, his absences from the garden were for minutes and he was never threatening.

Despite the evidence that the un-neighbourly next door neighbour had not done the sensible thing of alerting Christine to her dog’s naughtiness, she was found guilty.  But this was a pyrrhic victory for the Crown, because the dog was not ordered to be destroyed, rather to be returned to Christine with strict conditions to prevent him escaping in the future.  This was to have Roger Mugford erect an electrified sheep “flex net” system around Flake’s garden (I use that system to prevent foxes killing my lambs on my farm), also to come to our centre for obedience training and only to be allowed in the garden when Christine was present.

Christine was legally aided, in other words all of the defence costs were borne by the taxpayer.  Similarly the police and prosecution costs are paid by hard-pressed Exchequer, in other words you and me!

I estimate the total costs of this prosecution to be another £15,000 and the issue could so easily have been resolved by a neighbour (or a policeman) simply contacting Christine directly knocking on Christine’s door.

We often complain that we Brits are acquiring the American addition to trivial litigation, indulging lawyers in disputes better resolved by arbitration, conciliation or the application of common sense.  Our Dangerous Dogs legislation provides a nice little earner for policemen, dog specialists, lawyers and judges on matters canine.  A new industry was spawned in 1991!  The obvious solution is to bin the Act in its entirety.  Instead, I hear policemen from the Metropolitan “Status Dog Unit”, the RSPCA and other charities all pitching to, more or less, leave things as they are.

The moral of this story is that Britain’s dog legislation is insane and none of you dog loving readers can be sure that you will not have to have your time in court.  Just hope that you are entitled to legal aid, that you find a decent lawyer and an expert on dog behaviour who can persuade the courts that common sense and humanity are preferable instruments to effect behaviour change than rule-obsessed mandarins of the state.  Let’s hope that our new coalition government realise that the present system is a disgraceful waste of money and thoroughly cruel to dogs and their families.