Dogs No Longer Man’s Best Friend

Following the recent incidents of fatal dog attacks, the last of which claimed the life of security guard Denise Rakal, the Chamber’s  Crime and Justice Committee staged a presentation on inter alia, legislation relative to dog bite. Chairman of the Law Reform Commission, Samraj Harripaul, addressed the audience on current legislation which impacts upon the ownership and harbouring of dogs. The forum also sought feedback from owners, handlers, victims and the security service industry on their concerns with existing laws and those to be tabled in Parliament.

As more and more businesspeople and other property owners – both public and private – acquire dogs in order to protect their hard-earned possessions from two-legged predators determined to dispossess them, there have been periodic public outcries to address the inherent challenges to public safety brought about when these dogs run amok.

At present, if you are unfortunate enough to be bitten by a dog, horse, cow, ass, sheep, swine or goat, the common law, the Dogs Act, Chapter 67:54 and the Summary Offences Act, Chapter 11:02, provide remedies of sorts.

The common law remedy depends upon whether or not the animal’s owner or handler was aware of the dangerous propensities of the animal, e.g., whether it had injured, though not necessarily bitten, someone previously.  Damages and the compensation of victims is the measure of relief afforded by it.

By comparison, the 1918 Dogs Act initiated a system of dog licensing in order to address the problem of stray and owner-less dogs. Today, this problem is just as serious in urban areas, recreational spaces and tourism hubs.

The Act specifically deals with dangerous dogs and the manner in which they must be kept, to avoid danger to others. It empowers magistrates to order their destruction and penalizes owners for allowing these animals to injure others with fines of between $200 to $400. Compensation of victims is not the focus of this statute.

The Summary Offences Act relates to dogs and other animals, only if they are inclined to attack, worry or put in bodily fear, any other person or animal.  Section 77 of the Act imposes an obligation to confine animals but, peculiarly, does not include dogs, although the Minister is empowered to widen its application to ‘man’s best friend’. Again, compensation of the victim is not a focus of this law.

Since 2000, the Dangerous Dogs Act was legislated by Parliament, but never proclaimed up to today. While it makes insurance in the sum of $250,000 obligatory, as well as fencing of the premises by the owner with a suitable notice of the existing danger, it only impacts upon specific breeds of dogs identified therein, and not all dogs, or, for that matter, all animals, although in these modern times, everything from snakes to piranhas share living space with their owners and helpers.  It principally deals with the importation, breeding, handling and control of a limited number of dogs classified by the law to be “dangerous.”  It does not deal with cross breeding of German Shepherds, Dobermans, pit bulls or even pot hounds!

The reasons for non-proclamation of the Act are many, viz:  no regulations to prescribe the manner in which it is to be implemented, nor the height and type of walls, fences and notices to and to the public for compliance with the Act. The United Kingdom is now in the process of repealing this type breed-specific legislation and replacing it with much more appropriate law.

In the Chamber’s view, this is the juncture at which Trinidad and Tobago stands.  We must not simply discard our three pieces of legislation and the decisions of our various courts on the enforcement thereof, simply because some other, more developed country is doing so.  Our track record in enforcement is abysmal and recent victims of dog bite and death therefrom have re-generated a public crusade against dangerous dogs, in a society which is basically tolerant of animals and can justify the need to rear them. However, there must be some balance between this tolerance, the safety, welfare and right of our citizens to go about their lawful business, free from the fear of dog bite, and the respect for those in society who do not share a love of dogs.

In our view, the Law Reform Commission ought not to simply repeal the three Acts and substitute a brand new one in their place.  The punishments and fines imposed by the Dogs Act could be increased to keep in step with the today’s marketplace. The Summary Offences Act may also be enlarged and its regulations altered to include all kinds of dangerous animals and their methods of confinement. In the case of the Dangerous Dogs Act, more comprehensive amendment may be necessary to marry its provisions with those in the previous two pieces of legislation, and address its exclusivity to the importation, breeding, handling and control of specific breeds of dogs.  Restitution of victims of dog bite or any other animal bite, could be adequately catered for as a matter of extreme public concern.

The Law Reform Commission through Chairman Harripaul, invites all stakeholders and the public to make submissions on the satisfactory handling of this risk, to the Commission or to the Chamber. We support this call to remove the danger of animal bite from our public places and in furtherance of the protection of lawful visitors to private property.