[BBC News] Banned pitbull seized on island

[ans]

So she's paying for the 'independent' expert? That sounds completely impartial and above board and I can't possibly see any opportunity for bias.

[Chinahand]

From what I understand the IOM legislation is pants as it only says American Pitbull Terrier - and not cross breads, types etc.

 

I would put a large bet down that there is more than enough confusion in the facts to mean the legislation is effectively useless. I agree with Skeddan that the legislation which should be used is the Dogs act and not the Wildlife Act this dog is currently being held under. The Wildlife act is breed dependent and does not acknowledge cross breeds. The Dogs act simply looks at the animal and asks if it is dangerous.

 

If all the expert is doing is ruling whether the dog is a APB then it is totally counter productive to the public good. The question is can this dog be trusted in public and from the statements attributed to the MSPCA - not at all with dogs, and with only 75-80% of people - I am very doubtful.

[John Wright]

BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A DANGEROUS DOGS ACT

 

the legislation they are using is the only legislation and the regulatiosn refer to importation and types

 

so

 

a. is it a qualifying type and

 

b. has it been imported and

 

c. if it has and is here do the regulations allow death or deportation or what

[Cret]

What's happening with Champ now? Everyone involved has gone very quiet.

 

Must admit I've been wondering the same thing.

 

I've not really heard anything since the dog walk protest thing they did on the Prom weeks ago.

Maybe it's time to do some stirring again on 'Your say'....

Evil....

 

I can imagine that inventing fictitional characters to post inflammatory comments could be entertaining.

I saw for instance that there are were ones there from previously which appear to be a competition to get in lots of guns & roses song names etc in the comments.

[Skeddan]

BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A DANGEROUS DOGS ACT

 

the legislation they are using is the only legislation and the regulatiosn refer to importation and types

The Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation, etc.) Act 1980 is not the only legislation that could be used. I believe Chinahand was referring to Isle of Man's The Dogs Act 1990 which I referred to earlier in this thread. Section 19 of The Dogs Act 1990 ('Dogs causing danger, nuisance etc') has provisions for dealing with dangerous dogs, and these are not breed dependent.

 

http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/dlge/legislatio...entbill2005.pdf

[Chinahand]

Yes, Skeddan that is what I am saying - John I'm confused - we don't have a dangerous dogs act, but we do have a Dogs Act and that has sections on dogs which are considered dangerous - Yes, or I'm I missing something?

[John Wright]

But not banning them and not by type. Only if they have got out and or attacked. Every dog is allowed its bite in IOM.

 

s19 is based upon the dog haveing done something. the dangerous at © is ejusdem generis biting, killing live stock etc, not just the state of existence.

 

What has champ allegedley done? I am not aware it has allegedley done anything.

[Amadeus]

[Jimcalagon]

So which joker donated the headstone?

[Amadeus]

It's the window decoration in the shop - I kinda thought it makes a fitting picture in context to the whole thing

[Jimcalagon]

It's the window decoration in the shop - I kinda thought it makes a fitting picture in context to the whole thing

 

I know - I was just joshin wit ya.

[Cret]

What has champ allegedley done? I am not aware it has allegedley done anything.

 

I don't think he's actually done anything yet John.

[Jimcalagon]

What has champ allegedley done? I am not aware it has allegedley done anything.

 

I don't think he's actually done anything yet John.

 

 

I think this proves otherwise...

 

[WTF]

What has champ allegedley done? I am not aware it has allegedley done anything.

 

I don't think he's actually done anything yet John.

 

hes got sarah claiming to be the owner when she isn't

[Skeddan]

But not banning them and not by type. Only if they have got out and or attacked. Every dog is allowed its bite in IOM.

 

s19 is based upon the dog haveing done something. the dangerous at © is ejusdem generis biting, killing live stock etc, not just the state of existence.

 

What has champ allegedley done? I am not aware it has allegedley done anything.

No one said The Dogs Act 1990 bans dogs - instead it has provisions to deal with dangerous dogs, dogs causing injury and dogs giving just cause for alarm etc. In such cases where such a complaint has been made the court has power to order the dog be destroyed.

(1) Any person may make a complaint to a court of summary jurisdiction that a dog -

c) is dangerous, or

d) has caused injury or given just cause for alarm or annoyance, to any person in a highway or other place to which the public has access;

 

(2) On a complaint under subsection (1) the court may make an order directing that the dog .. in a case falling within subsection (1)c) or (1)d) be destroyed within a time so specified.

 

'Just cause for alarm' doesn't require the dog to have been allowed its bite or actually caused injury, yet in such a case the court can still order that the dog be destroyed. Similarly there is no reason to suppose that 'dangerous' requires the dog to have been allowed its bite or to have actually caused injury.

 

If 'dangerous' required that the dog had actually bitten or caused injury, then 'dangerous' and the whole of clause c) would be redundant as this is covered under d) ( 'has caused injury or given just cause for alarm'). Hence this shows that 'dangerous' is a different matter from having caused injury.

 

(A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless or redundant unless absolutely necessary).

 

It is also a fundamental rule of interpretation that words are given their ordinary and natural meanings.

 

dangerous - poses a risk of injury, likely to cause harm, presenting a hazard to safety etc. A dangerous weapon or dangerous building - these may still be dangerous without having yet actually caused injury or harm.

 

ejusdem generis doesn't come into it - clause c) does not give a list. There is no reason to suppose 'dangerous' should be interpreted as having a meaning other than it's ordinary meaning or to take a strained interpretation which requires that the dog has already caused injury. Instead, given separate provisions for dogs which have actually caused injury, it is clear that c) concerns dogs which are dangerous and pose a threat regardless of whether or not they have already caused injury.

 

It may be common law that every dog is allowed its bite, but common law gives way to statute law.

 

A Pitbull cross which has high actuarial risk of causing injury, has been assessed as 'not good with other dogs', and not good with people 25% of the time (as Champ has), and which is big and strong and capable of inflicting very serious bite wounds may very reasonably be considered to be dangerous, particularly in the hands of an owner who is naive about the danger and given a young baby in the household. Such a dog poses a real threat of harm and high risk of causing serious injury.

 

If the dog is dangerous, then even if it hasn't actually bitten anyone or caused injury, The Dogs Act 1990 allows the court to order that the dog be destroyed.

 

Champ perhaps may not fall within the category dogs which are banned under the The Wild Animals (Restriction on Importation, etc.) Act 1980. However Champ could still be dealt with under The Dogs Act 1990 if a complaint were made to a court of summary jurisdiction that Champ is a dangerous dog.

 

S.19 is not based on the dog actually having done something, and The Dogs Act 1990 makes adequate provisions for dealing with dangerous dogs - in the ordinary and natural sense of 'dangerous'.

 

http://www.gov.im/lib/news/dlge/reassuranceregar.xml