Dogs that are deemed to be of a prohibited breed may be placed on the exemption register and may be able to return to their owners subject to certain conditions. In order for that to happen, the court must consider if the dog poses a risk to public safety and if the owner is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog.
In both Duke and Lilly’s case, the prosecution raised concerns that these dogs were a risk to public safety. These concerns appeared to be based on the fact that, as a result of their physical appearance, Duke and Lilly had suddenly become “Dangerous Dogs.”
Both of these dogs had previously lived with the children in their respective households without ever behaving aggressively, they were much loved family pets. The prosecution in both cases stated that the dogs posed a danger to the children in the home, and as such, should not be allowed to return home as exempted dogs. In Lilly’s case a destruction order was granted which was appealed. In Duke’s case, the magistrates were unsure about the risk Duke posed to public safety and there was a second hearing as they could not make a decision.
This classic example of stereotyping resulted in these gentle family dogs, suddenly deemed to be dangerous to the children they had happily lived with before being seized, now being at risk of being euthanised. I was asked to provide my opinion in respect of them posing a danger to public safety.
Unfortunately, in society, pit bull type dogs are perceived as being more dangerous than other breeds, in my view this is mainly as a result of negative media reporting over the last 30 years leading up to, and since, the introduction of the Dangerous Dogs Act which was introduced in 1991. Portrayal of pit bull type dogs as “Devil Dogs” in popular media and a lack of understanding of the breed in conjunction with legislation labelling them as “Dangerous Dogs” has encouraged the negative stereotyping that I see in the legal process.
I gave evidence regarding the behaviour of both of these dogs, following an assessment of them and their home environment. Both dogs were gentle, affectionate dogs of excellent temperament and both sets of owners were responsible and had the appropriate measures in place that any dog owner should have with small children in the house, to allow the dog to have their own space away from the children.
I explained to the court that there is no robust scientific evidence to suggest that a dog that has been deemed to be of pit bull type is any more likely to behave aggressively toward people than any other breed. Duke and Lilly had also both been subject of behaviour assessments, unlike the vast majority of pet dogs living with children.
Fortunately, despite the prosecutions opinion that both these dogs posed a danger and should not be allowed home, the courts agreed with my view that Duke and Lilly posed no danger to public safety, or to that of the children in their respective homes and could safely return to their families.
I understand why stereotypes are formed, it’s human nature, I feel that education is the only way to address the issues faced by dogs like Duke and Lilly while breed specific legislation remains in place. I plan to work with magistrates around the country, presenting science-based education in respect of dog behaviour that will hopefully assist them when making decisions about dogs in legal proceedings.