Must the innocent continue to suffer?

For many years now the National Training Inspectorate for Professional Dog Users (NTIPDU) has campaigned for a change in legislation regarding the use and training of security guard dogs. Those dogs are not required by the Government to be licensed for work. There are laws in place, sure, but they are only effective when it’s too late.

Witness the innocent baby Cadey-Lee Deacon being savaged and killed by two Rottweilers at The Rocket Pub in the New Parks area of Leicester on 23 September. This was a truly horrific story of an incident that could so easily have been prevented.

The Guard Dogs Act 1975 was introduced following a number of tragic accidents involving security guard dogs. Under Section 1 of that Act the only Section to have been invoked thus far, in fact a dog used at any premises for guarding purposes must be under the control of its handler at all times. Alternatively, it must be secured such that it cannot roam the premises. Where a guard dog is used, there must be clearly visible signage exhibited at all entrances to the premises.

There are currently no plans to implement the rest of the Act, which provides for a licensing system for the kennels where guard dogs are kept. The main purpose of the legislation in conjunction with the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dogs Act 1871 is to protect members of the public from potentially dangerous dogs on the loose.

For its part, the 1871 Act applies everywhere, even in and around private premises. In truth, it does not actually create an offence, but provides for the putting down of or the imposition of controls on dangerous dogs.

Where an attack has taken place on private premises, it may be possible for a person who has been attacked by a dog to initiate civil proceedings to claim damages on the basis that the person owning and/or controlling the dog displayed negligence.

The Animals Act 1971 also provides that, in certain circumstances, the keeper of an animal is directly liable for any damage it causes, if he or she knew that it was likely to cause such damage or injury when unrestrained.

None of these Acts prevented little Cadey-Lee from being savaged. At this point, all of the directors and members of the NTIPDU would like to take this opportunity of expressing our deepest sympathy and great regret for what happened.

Sadly, the Government chose to overlook patrol dogs or guard dogs when drafting and then passing into law the Private Security Industry Act 2001. In turn, the Security Industry Authority (SIA) will NOT be changing the legislation to cover the use of guard dogs. As things stand and as Robert Taylor rightly pointed out to your readers anyone with an SIA licence may, if they so wish, use a dog when at work without the need to undergo any formal training.

In light of what has happened, is the Government going to continue to stand idle while other innocents are seriously wounded or killed?

Police officers are trained and licensed to use dogs. To become a police dog handler, you need to have ‘worked the beat’ for three years, then undergo a stringent selection process and complete a very lengthy training course. Once competent, the officer and his or her dog must then pass a licensing examination. This is only right and proper as far as we’re concerned. Thereafter, it’s all about continuation training and annual licensing for the task(s) at hand.

That said, the police service ‘Order of Use’ is as follows: (1) Stun gun (2) CS spray (3) Police baton (4) Baton rounds (ie rubber bullets) (5) Police dog and (6) Firearms.

The police service, it would appear, regards the use of trained dogs almost as a last resort.

Richard Timmis, Ian Green, Sandra Timmis, Wayne Barker and Charles Wall Directors

National Training Inspectorate for Professional Dog Users (NTIPDU)