Dangerous Dog Bill debate today

THE House of Representatives will tackle the issue of dangerous dogs when it sits today at 1.30 pm to debate the Dog Control Bill 2013.

Attorney General Anand Ramlogan will open debate on the bill which requires a three-fifths majority for passage. This means Government needs 25 votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives and 19 votes to pass it in the Senate.

By virtue of its 29 MPs in the House to the Opposition People’s National Movement’s (PNM) 12 seats, the Government already has the required number of votes to pass the bill. However, Government will need to get the support of either the six Opposition senators or the nine Independent senators in the Upper House to pass the bill there. Government only has 15 senators in the Upper House.

The objective of the bill is to provide for the control of dogs and to regulate the manner in which certain breeds of dogs are kept by their keepers and owners. The bill also seeks to repeal the Dangerous Dogs Act 2000 which was passed under the then United National Congress (UNC) government.

The legislation places dogs into two categories— A and B— with the dogs in Category A being considered as the more dangerous types of dogs. The dogs listed in this schedule are the Pitbull Terrier, Fila Brasilero and the Japanese Tosa and any dog which is bred from any of these breeds.

Class B dogs are “all other types of dogs.”

Clause 11 of the bill imposes an obligation on the owner of a Class A dog to hold a policy of insurance with coverage of not less than $250,000 for each dog. The bill, at Clause 5, prohibits the entry of dogs in restaurants, places where food and beverages are consumed by the public, commercial malls and shops unless the dog is a guide dog. Class A dogs are prohibited from entering public places unless they are properly muzzled and on a leash.

Class A dogs must be licensed and that licence would be valid for a period of two years. Under Clause 8, the Local Government Ministry would have the power to take charge of a Class A dog where the owner or keeper is unable to fulfill the requirements of the Act. Clause 22 provides for a constable or officer or a local authority to seize and destroy a Class A dog which is in a place where it is not permitted to be.

The legislation will empower a magistrate to issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search premises and seize a Class A dog in certain circumstances. Clause 24 of the bill provides an exemption for veterinary surgeons who keep Class A dogs in a professional capacity. Clause 16 states that owners of Class A dogs must have their dogs trained by a certified dog trainer. Owners of Class B dogs must do the same when it comes to the attention of a constable or authorised officer or a local authority that the dog “has been dangerously out of control on at least one occasion.” Clause 16 (4) states that any person who fails to do these things in accordance with the legislation “commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment for one year.”

The bill indicates at Clause 19 (1): “Where a Class A dog injures a person, the owner or keeper of the dog commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $100,000 and to imprisonment for five years.”

In a situation where a Class A dog kills a person or causes the death of a person, its owner commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for ten years. Where a Class A dog kills a person or causes the death of a person on or outside of private premises where the dog was unprovoked or an offence was not being committed, the court may order the seizure and destruction of that dog.

Clause 20 (1) of the bill states: “A person who, without reasonable cause, incites a dog to attack another person commits an offence and is liable, in addition to any other penalties he may incur under this Act, on summary conviction to a fine of $25,000 and to imprisonment for six months.”

A person charged with committing an offence under this section of the legislation must establish that the other person was committing or had an intention of committing a criminal offence.

Section 20 is not applicable with respect to the training of dogs.

Where a person is convicted of an offence under Clause 21 of the legislation, the court has four options available to it. These are to give an order that the dog be sold or given to a person who will properly care for the dog; order the dog be sold or given to an establishment for the reception of stray dogs; order the destruction of a Class A dog in a manner to cause as little pain as possible by a veterinary surgeon and order the offender to be disqualified, for such period as the court thinks fit, from owning or keeping a Class A dog.

Newsday