New Uk Laws Prosecting Dog Owners If They Scare Children

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Well I strongly disagree indeed. If the dog had bitten me more credit to it and more fool me. It would have been guarding the property, not only an asset to her owners but exercising an instinct that comes naturally to dogs. We love dogs in this country, so let us accept their natures and take some responsibility for our own actions, not anthropomorphise and claim the dog needs a behaviourist if it bites an intruder.

[sandgrubber]

Interesting, but the situation we're talking about wouldn't be about prosecuting the child, it's about the behaviour of the dog, and whether the relevant Act or Bylaw provides for action against the dog/owner. Unless there is a definition for 'trespassing' in the Calgary Bylaws for that specific Act, you would usually go by the the dictionary definition. I'd be very interesting to see what the Calgary Officer's interpretation of their bylaw provides for. My hunch is that there is defence for the dog.

Judges are more likely to look to statutes and prior rulings than to the dictionary. Legal terms often depart widely from common usage.

I suspect, however, that this is a sterile argument, cause the number of dog owners prosecuted under this clause is zero, or close to it. I suspect that the UK law under discussion is, like the Calgary Bylaws, multi-faceted. Some reporter has jumped on one section and created a tempest in a teapot. Maybe I'm naive, and I know there are injustices in the justice system, but I generally think that prosecutors are willing to look at the circumstances, and can generally tell the difference between a truly dangerous dog and one that does minor damage. On the other hand, I do think that societies have become much less tolerant of dogs being used as protection, and dog owners who defy that social trend do so at their dog's and their own risk. Many places are approaching zero tolerance for dogs that attack children.