How was there no crime in dog attack?

Have your say

IN last week’s story about a greyhound badly injuring a labrador the Lincolnshire Police spokesman said “no action would be taken as no criminal offences were committed”.

Surely under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Section 3 a criminal offence is created of allowing any dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place.

A dog can be regarded as being dangerously out of control where it causes fear or apprehension to a person that it may injure them.

In dog-on-dog attacks, injury to another dog is not covered under this legislation unless a person is injured or there are reasonable grounds for apprehension that the dog will injure a person - and I think the last line is applicable here as surely in trying to separate the dogs there must have been reasonable grounds for apprehension that the dog would bite the owner of the labrador, or in fact any of the other people trying to help to separate them.

But for the owner of the labrador, if the police still refuse to take action, under the Animals Act 1971 the dog’s owner could be held liable to pay compensation in a civil action for any damage caused by his dog.

Or am I wrong, Police Spokesman and if so why?

l Statements from the leaders of South Kesteven District Council and Lincolnshire County Council both come out with ideas with no foundation.

SKDC says it has lots more ideas in the pipeline and both claim progress with be made on the bypass.

I shall believe it when I see it.

We still haven’t had the final definitive cost of the Market Place yet, just estimates.

Fine words butter no parsnips.

by Steve Cattell