DOGS (AMENDMENT) BILL

________________

EXPLANATORY AND FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION

1. This Explanatory and Financial Memorandum has been prepared by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in order to assist the reader in understanding the Bill and to help inform debate on it. It does not form part of the Bill and has not been endorsed by the Assembly.

2. The Memorandum needs to be read in conjunction with the Bill. It does not, and is not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So where a clause or part of a clause does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given.

BACKGROUND AND POLICY OBJECTIVES

3. (i) The purpose of this Bill is to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with that in Great Britain by providing limited discretionary powers for a court or a resident magistrate in relation to the destruction of dogs.

(ii) At present, under the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (as amended) a dog that has attacked a person or livestock shall be subject to a destruction order. A court has no power or discretion to decide otherwise.

(iii) The Bill would amend the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (as amended) to give the courts a limited discretion where it appears to a court that a dog has attacked a person or worried livestock (Article 33(2) of the Dogs Order 1983 is no longer required since the new paragraph (1) of Article 33 covers a dog worrying livestock). Under the provisions of the Bill the court would have the option of making an order to have a dog destroyed or it would have the option of making an order to have the dog destroyed unless measures specified in the order are taken to prevent the dog being a danger to the public or to livestock. These measures might include fitting a muzzle, keeping the dog confined in such a way that it cannot escape, excluding it from places specified in the order, or having it neutered.

(iv) Under existing legislation a court has no discretion where a person is convicted of an offence in relation to a dangerous dog under Article 25A. A dog has to be destroyed. The Bill would provide that where a person is convicted of an offence in relation to a dangerous dog under Article 25A, a court may make an order directing that the dog be destroyed. The court shall do this unless it is satisfied that the dog will not be a danger to the public. Under existing legislation the court has discretion as to whether or not to order the destruction of a dog in respect of which an offence under Article 25B was committed. The provision contained in the Bill now confers the same limited discretion as provided for Article 25A dogs.

(v) The Bill proposes changes to the powers of a resident magistrate in relation to dangerous dogs seized under Article 25C (where it appears that no person has been or is to be prosecuted). Under the law at present, a resident magistrate must order the destruction of a dangerous dog, as defined by Article 25A. The Bill now proposes that the resident magistrate must still order such a dog to be destroyed, but it would allow a person to apply for a certificate of exemption from the requirement to have the dog destroyed. In relation to all other dogs, the law presently gives a resident magistrate full discretion to decide what action to take. The Bill now proposes that the resident magistrate would have discretion not to order the destruction of a dog only where he is satisfied that a dog is not a danger to the public.

(vi) The Bill would allow those cases, where a court or resident magistrate has ordered the destruction of a dog, but the dog has not yet been destroyed, to be reconsidered by a court or resident magistrate under the provisions of this Bill.

CONSULTATION

4. The Bill has been the subject of internal consultation with Northern Ireland Departments and with the Northern Ireland Court Service. It has not been subject to public consultation.

OPTIONS CONSIDERED

5. The only means of achieving the objective of giving discretion to courts and resident magistrates in relation to the destruction of dogs is through an amendment to primary legislation.

OVERVIEW

6. The Bill has 3 main clauses. Clause 1 relates to the power of courts to order the destruction of dogs, Clause 2 relates to the power of resident magistrates to order the destruction of certain dogs and Clause 3 deals with transitional provisions.

COMMENTARY ON CLAUSES

Clause 1 : Power of court to order destruction of dogs

This clause deals with the powers of a court to order the destruction of a dog.

Subsection (1) provides for amendments to Article 33 as described in subsections (2) to (5).

Subsection (2) provides for the court to order a dog to be destroyed if it appears to the court that it attacked a person or worried livestock. This subsection allows the court as an alternative to consider specifying certain measures to be taken to prevent a dog being a danger to the public or livestock. Such measures might include fitting a muzzle, keeping the dog confined, excluding the dog from certain places or having the dog neutered.

Subsection (3) provides that where a person is convicted of an offence in relation to a dangerous dog, that is a dog bred for fighting or such other dog as the Department may by order prescribe as presenting a serious danger to the public then the court shall order the dog to be destroyed. This subsection introduces a discretion for the court to satisfy itself that the dog will not be a danger to the public in which case the court may decide not to order the destruction of the dog.

Subsection (4) makes an appropriate consequential amendment to Article 33(6) in relation to appeals and cases stated.

Subsection (5) provides that, where the owner of a dog which the court has ordered to be destroyed appeals, or a person who is convicted of having a dangerous dog appeals, then until the appeal has been heard, (or is abandoned) the dog must be kept confined.

Clause 2 : Power of resident magistrate to order destruction of dogs

Subsection (1) provides that where a dog to which Article 25A applies, is seized under Article 25C and (where it appears to the resident magistrate that no person has been or is to be prosecuted) it shall be destroyed by order. However the subsection now allows the alternative of a keeper of a dog being able to obtain a certificate of exemption from the requirement to have a dog destroyed. The Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 enabled a keeper of a prescribed dog who did not wish to have the dog destroyed to apply for exemption from destruction provided specific conditions were met before 30 November 1991. The Bill now provides for an exemption from destruction to be obtained if the specific conditions are met within two months of the date of an order. The subsection also provides that where a dog is not one to which Article 25A applies the existing requirement for mandatory destruction is replaced by a provision which would allow the resident magistrate discretion in whether or not to order the destruction of a dog, except where he considers the dog to be a danger to the public, in which case he must order its destruction.

Subsection (2) paragraph (a) provides that where an order has been made under Article 25C (3), any reference in Part III of the Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order (NI) 1991 to the date of 30 November 1991 shall have effect as if it were a reference to the end of a 2 month period from the date on which the order was made.

Subsection (2) paragraph (b) provides for the fee payable to a District Council for a certificate of exemption to be of such amount as the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development may by order, subject to negative resolution, prescribe.

Clause 3 : Transitional Provisions

Subsection (1) provides that this Act would apply to cases still extant under existing legislation.

Subsection (2) provides that where an order has been made by a court under paragraph (1) or (1A) of Article 33 of the Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (as amended) for the destruction of a dog but the dog has not yet been destroyed, the order ceases to have effect and any person may apply to a court for an order under paragraphs (1) or (1A) of Article 33 as amended.

Subsection (3) similarly provides for an order made by a resident magistrate under paragraph (3) of Article 25C for destruction of a dog, but where the dog has not yet been destroyed, to have effect and any person may apply to a resident magistrate for an order under paragraph (3) of Article 25C as amended.

Clause 4 : Consequential repeal

By virtue of the provisions in this Bill, Article 5 (destruction of dangerous dogs) of the Dangerous Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 is no longer required and is therefore being repealed.

Clause 5 : Commencement

This section provides for Sections 1 to 4 to come into operation 2 months after the date of Royal Assent.

Clause 6 : Short title

This Act is to be cited as the Dogs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2000.

FINANCIAL EFFECTS ON THE BILL

8. There are no exchequer costs or staffing implications related to this Bill.

EFFECTS ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

9. There is no direct or indirect impact on equal opportunities.

SUMMARY OF THE REGULATORY APPRAISAL

10. The Bill contains no proposals which impact on businesses.

LEGISLATIVE COMPETENCE

11. The Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development has made the following statement under section 9 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998:

"In my view the Dogs (Amendment) Bill would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly".