Judges and magistrates will now be encouraged to deliver tougher sentences for anyone whose dog attacks another person. The guidelines aim to reduce the amount of court discharges that offenders currently receive, instead concentrating on stringent jail sentences, community orders and fines. The offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place now carries a minimum term of 6 months in jail; judges have also been issued guidelines for more serious dog attacks, which can now carry a sentence of up to 18 months[1].

In publishing all of the guidelines concerning dangerous dogs, dog attacks and irresponsible owners in one single document, it is hoped that punishments for dog owners will become more consistent across England and Wales. The guidelines will also enable the courts to utilise their powers, so that any irresponsible owner can be banned from owning or breeding dogs, in addition to being ordered to pay compensation to the victims of a dog attack. Indeed, courts must consider compensation to be paid to all victims where a dog bite attack has resulted in personal injury, loss or damage. If the court does not decide to order compensation, they must give specific reasons for this. These provisions should hopefully make it easier for victims of dog bite attacks to claim compensation for their injuries[2].

The new guidelines have been welcomed by most, with Trevor Cooper, a legal consultant for the Dogs Trust, saying that the guidelines

‘Will encourage courts to focus on the key factors of culpability of the owner and the amount of harm to the victim’[3].

This is an important point: previously, the law has tended to focus too much on dog breeds, or types, when examining the issue of dangerous dogs. The 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act, for instance, is centralised on the banning of four ‘dangerous’ dog types[4]. The new focus on dog owners, rather than the specific breed of the dog, is a very positive step, suggesting that the law is slowly beginning to reflect the fact that any dog can be dangerous if it is not handled or trained correctly.

The guidelines illustrate this shift in attitudes, in stating that the tougher sentencing rules apply not only to owners of banned dogs, but also any dog that attacks another person. It is significant that, where the guidelines list factors that increase the seriousness of the dog attack offence, they include:

• Ill treatment or failure to ensure the welfare needs of the dog
• Allowing a person insufficiently experienced or trained to be in charge of the dog.
• Goading or allowing goading of the dog
• Dog used as a weapon to intimidate the victim
• Failure to respond to warnings or concerns expressed by others about the dog’s behaviour[5].

Equally positive is the new protection given to vulnerable individuals, including the elderly and the disabled. Previous guidelines had only offered tougher sentences where the dog attack involved a child; the new guidelines have ensured that offenders can be held accountable for attacks on adults as well as children[6].

Tougher sentencing will not, by itself, eradicate the problem of dog bite attacks: Steve Goody, speaking on behalf of Blue Cross, the animal welfare charity, has argued for the introduction of ‘useful, practical measures… to target irresponsible dog owners before an attack happens.[7]’ With over 6,000 hospital admissions in England and Wales each year for serious dog bite attacks[8], the guidelines are an extremely important and positive step in tackling the issue of dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners.

It is not to late to have your say. Take part here Dangerous Dogs Survey

Do you think dangerous dogs are a serious problem?

Total Votes: 252

Have you seen a dog physically attack a human?

Total Votes: 252

All dogs should be muzzled in public

Total Votes: 253

Certain breeds should be muzzled in public

Total Votes: 247

Certain breeds should be kept on lead in public

Total Votes: 250

All dogs should be kept on a lead in public

Total Votes: 252

All dogs should be microchipped

Total Votes: 248

Certain breeds should be microchipped

Total Votes: 246

All owners should have dog insurance

Total Votes: 249

Owners of certain breeds should have dog insurance

Total Votes: 249

Are you a dog owner

Total Votes: 253

Shirley, a single mum from Reading, 45, was involved in a dog bite incident when she was out walking her own dog in her estate’s park in February 2009. She was forced to confront the quite intimidating issues surrounding dog bites and the law,

‘I remember exactly what happened, I had let my dog off the lead in order for her to have a run about the park, when I noticed that a much larger dog had begun to chase mine. I began to get a bit worried, as I couldn’t spot the owner of this other dog anywhere. The larger dog then began to attack my dog – and that’s when I started to run and help. I managed to tear away the larger dog, but in doing so it bit onto my right arm so hard that I screamed. This was when the owner finally arrived at the scene – when the dog was still locked onto my arm. The owner managed to calm her dog down and it did finally let go of my arm. Both myself and my dog were injured. The owner of the dog took us both home, by this point my arm was bleeding badly. Luckily, my eldest son was at home and he took our dog to the vet, whilst I drove myself to the hospital. I needed stitches and they advised me to rest my arm for two weeks at least.’

Shirley worked in a local bakery, where she did not get paid for the time she had off work. This left her family in financial difficulties. Luckily, the family pet was treated at the vets and made a full recovery.

Shirely was then faced with expensive veterinary fees, as well as a substantial loss in wages.  She googled ‘dog bites and the law’ and found that she may have a case for compensation. The owner of the other dog had not be sufficiently supervising her pet; Shirley had also been negatively affected by the impact of her dog bite injuries. It was at this point that Shirley contacted some solicitors to discuss what her options were. She retold the story clearly and concisely and was told that she may have a case for compensation under the current legislations for dog bites and the law surrounding them.

This was a great relief to Shirley, as she had been losing sleep over the mounting bills. In the end, she received her compensation, helping her family out a great deal.

A similar case occurred with James, 23, from Manchester, whilst at university. He had been walking through the local park on his way to a lecture when an unsupervised dog attacked his left calf for ‘absolutely no reason’. James was left in a great deal of pain and demanded the owner’s contact details when they finally arrived at the scene. This was the most sensible thing James could have done, as he required expensive physiotherapy in order to get his leg back to normal, as well as minor reconstructive surgery. There was no way James would have been able to afford this on a student budget. James made a dog bite claim against the owner of the dog and won £5,000 in compensation.

The Dangerous Dog Act of 1991 (amended in 1997) made it illegal for particular breeds of dogs to be owned without a special exemption from court. Such breeds on the list include the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero, which are mainly large, working dogs, traditionally used as guardians or in herding. If caught owning these dogs illegally in the UK, however, owners face up to six months imprisonment and/or a fine of over £5000.

But these are not the only dogs which may be a potential risk to you or your family. Larger breeds which are often kept as family pets, such a Boxers, Rottweilers and even Labradors can also be extremely dangerous if provoked. Even smaller dogs with less physical strength can pose a risk to young children and adults alike; Dachshunds and Jack Russells are often considered more aggressive in nature than larger breeds. Ultimately, every dog should be considered with caution.

New legislation, called the Dog Control Bill, is due to be passed later in 2011 which will replace the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991, and could affect your right to dog bite compensation. The new laws will apply to all breeds of dog and aim to place more responsibility on the owners, so that they manage their dog safely in public and private places. Owners of offending dogs will face fines if their dog has “bitten, mauled or injured a person”.

It is natural to be wary of the risk from dogs when in a public place, such as the park or beach, especially when dogs are unrestrained. But this is not the only situation in which dog bites can occur. If your job requires you to enter another person’s house, such as those of postmen, technicians, plumbers etc., you are also at risk from dog bites. In fact, dogs can be especially aggressive when they feel you are an intruder in their territory, or if someone approaches their food or personal space. A recent study carried out by the BBC showed that in 2009, there were 5,091 dog attacks on postmen and women in the UK alone. Keith Davies was one such postman; he had to undergo six-hours of surgery to correct the ligaments in his arm following an attack from two Rottweilers. Keith received full dog bite compensation, covering the cost of his operation and physiotherapy aftercare, as well as a generous personal compensation.

If you have been a victim of a dog bite, and are looking to claim for dog bite compensation, there are some steps you can take to strengthen your claim. First of all, seek medical advice: even if the wound does not look too bad, you may need to have a tetanus injection or a course of antibiotics to protect from infection. You can do this by visiting the Accident & Emergency section of your local hospital or, in the case of severe attacks, dialing 999. It is important that you record what medical treatment you receive, as this can support your claim for dog bite compensation. Taking photographs of injuries is a useful way of generating permanent evidence of the wounds.

If possible, you should also try to get the name and personal details of the dog owner and of any witnesses of the accident who might help explain what has happened. It will assist your compensation claim if the owner to able to pay the compensation costs through pet insurance or household & contents insurance, so try to discover if the owner is covered by these. Finally, contacting the police or the local council will be useful to protect other members of the public from the vicious dog; you may find that you were not the first victim.

To discuss how you could claim dog bite compensation yourself, contact Macks Solicitors today. We are able to offer you accurate, simple and no-fuss advice about how you can claim compensation to cover physical, psychological and financial losses. Macks Solicitors operate on a no-win, no-fee basis, so there really is nothing to lose. Simply complete the thirty second claim-form or call directly 0800 980 9390 to assess how much money you could be entitled to.

In another incident, two men, aged 19 and 20 were sentenced to five years imprisonment last year. Their two dogs attacked three police officers. One police officer suffered bite wounds to his right leg, knee and arm. He has been left with permanent scarring. Two other officers who came to his assistance were also bitten. The judge who sentenced the two men said that, “this is a type of offence which is causing increasing, legitimate concern in the public.” The two men were banned from keeping any dog for 10 years, in addition to their prison sentences and the two dogs in question were put to sleep.

Dog bite law is currently undergoing changes. The Dog Control Bill passed the report stage in the House of Lords earlier this month. Under the new Bill, dog control notices will address problematic behaviour at an early stage, no matter what breed the dog involved is. The notices will focus on owners’ responsibility rather than particular breeds. The Bill will reach the final stage in the House of Lords after the summer recess and will then move to the House of Commons for further consideration.

Current dog bite law bans certain breeds as dangerous. These breeds include the Pit Bull Terrier, the Japanese Tosa, the Dogo Argentino and Fila Braziliero. It is illegal to breed from, sell, abandon or give away a banned dog. A dog that is suspected to be a banned breed can be seized by the police or dog warden. It is possible to have a dog that is a banned breed put on the Index of Exempted Dogs as long as certain conditions are met, including that the dog is neutered and insured against injuring other people.

A spokesperson from the Kennel Club has said of the new Bill, “Bull breeds and Pit Bull Terriers in general are the very victims of their own loyal nature. These dogs are used for fighting because of their extreme loyalty and willingness to do anything for their owner… This loyalty also means that in other countries pit bulls and other bull breeds are used as search and rescue dogs, assistance dogs and guide dogs – yet in this country they can be destroyed just for being of a ‘type’.”

Lord Redesdale, who introduced the Bill said, “Banning the Pit Bull Terrier in 1991 was a huge mistake… Doing away with breed specific legislation would remove the ‘cachet’ that these dogs currently have and focus on the real problem at the other end of the lead.” Any dog, no matter what breed, can be well behaved and safe to be around or can be dangerous and at risk of biting. A major factor in dog behaviour is owner behaviour and whether the dog is properly trained and controlled. Being violent towards a dog is likely to encourage the dog to be aggressive, as well as encouraging the dog to be violent towards others.

Some dogs, particularly Staffordshire Bull Terriers, are often used as weapons, particularly in gang conflicts. Because of the width of their jaws, Staffordshire Bull Terriers can exert a huge amount of pressure in their bite. Certain breeds, such as the Mastiff, can exert nearly as much pressure in their bite as a lion. When trained to attack on command, a dog like this can prove a dangerous weapon. Around 225,000 people attend a minor injury or A&E department every year as a result of dog bites. Most of these attacks are from dogs that they know. Admissions to hospital as a result of dog bites stood at 5,800 in 2009/10 and in 2008, there were four fatalities.

There are different types of dog aggression. Dominance aggression is a struggle for dominance. Careful and firm handling from an early age can combat this. Territorial aggression can occur when a dog sees a certain area as his territory. This can cause particular problems for postmen, who may be seen as strangers entering this territory. Fear based aggression can either be as a result of temperament or mistreatment and occurs when a dog is frightened. Predatorial aggression occurs when a dog perceives something as its prey, which could include a running child.

It is hoped that the new Dog Control Bill will address some of the issues of dog handling that lead to dog bites and that incidents will be reduced.

Even if a dog has been immunized, a dog bite attack can be a traumatic experience for any victim. However, the worry of disease developing from an unimmunized dog is something that should not occur in the UK. A forty-six year old father of three, Robert Greenhall, was walking from his parked car to his front door in Brighton in March 2009. As he made his way to the door, his next door neighbour’s Dalmatian ‘came out of nowhere’ and bit him on the hand as the victim attempted to shield himself. The owner immediately apologised and took Mr Greenhall to Brighton General Hospital. The bite was treated and appeared not to be too deep. Hospital staff advised Mr Greenhall to demand the most recent immunization documentation from the owner of the dog as soon as possible. Mr Greenhall took the hospital’s advice and resolved to ask his neighbour for the documentation on the following day. That evening he contemplated dog bite claims and whether he wanted to make one, but decided against it, as the bite was not really that deep and wouldn’t affect his work as a teacher in any foreseeable way. On the next day Mr Greenhall knocked on his neighbour’s door in order to request the appropriate documentation. However, Mr Greenhall found the neighbour to be ‘very defensive’ as he began to accuse Mr Greenhall of ‘calling him an unfit owner’. Even after Mr Greenhall persisted, the owner continued to be reluctant about handing over any documentation – a fact that made Mr Greenhall think that the owner had not in fact had his dog immunized.

In response to this, Mr Greenhall did two things. Firstly, he booked an emergency appointment with his GP and explained the situation. The GP did a full check-up and advised Mr Greenhall on any possible symptoms he might experience that would require him to go immediately to the nearest hospital. The second thing Mr Greenhall did was reconsider the possibility of dog bite claims and sought legal advice. What he discovered was that the neighbour’s unhelpfulness and lack of cooperation, coupled with the circumstances of the dog bite itself, would generally be grounds enough for most successful dog bite claims. However, if the owner genuinely had not made sure that the pet was vaccinated, then this would make them especially liable. Mr Greenhall took legal action and won compensation.

It is, in fact, illegal for an owner not to get a dog vaccinated against rabies in the EU. This legal requirement should be taken seriously by all dog owners as the outcome of an individual being bitten by a rabid dog can be disastrous. It should be remembered that rabies is particularly uncommon in the UK, due to these strict laws. When they are violated, however, the owner is open to serious legal charges and dog bite claims.

In September 2010, a female biochemistry student from Edinburgh University was out walking her own dog in the local area. She began to feel nervous as what she described as a ‘diseased stray’ began to follow her and her own dog. This apparently continued for about two-hundred metres, until the student’s pet dog began to ‘growl defensively’ at the stray. The situation quickly turned into a dangerous one, as the stray dog attacked the student’s dog before passers by running to the young woman’s aid scared the stray away. Reports later surfaced that witnesses had recognised the dog as belonging to a reclusive woman who lived in a nearby flat. Police investigated the incident and by using microchip technology confirmed that the dangerous dog did indeed belong to this woman. The dog had never been vaccinated, though was known to have previously been abroad. Apparently, the owner had used fake immunization proof documentation in order to go on holiday with the dog. The bite resulted in both the student’s pet dog being destroyed due to fears of rabies, as well as the offending animal. No human beings were reported to have been bitten by the dog and the case can be described as an isolated incident. The student did look into dog bite claims and came out with considerable compensation for her losses. The owner is now facing legal charges and awaiting trial.

Mrs Wright described how the toy bone (which was used to play fetch with) accidentally landed at her feet where she was sitting and she had ‘absolutely no time at all’ to remove herself from the situation in time to avoid the dog. The dog immediately latched onto the calf of her left leg. When Mrs Wright attempted to pull the dog off it bit her right upper arm three times, before obeying its owner and letting go. Mrs Wright was admitted to the local hospital and luckily the injuries were not life threatening. They did, however, leave significant scarring, which doctors advised would not heal completely on its own. At this point, a dog attack compensation claim did not occur to Mrs Wright.

Mrs Wright did not come from a poor family, her husband being a secondary school teacher and herself working part time as a teaching assistant. Their wages, however, were not enough to cover the reconstructive ‘cosmetic’ surgery that would have been needed to make the scars on her calf and upper arm less noticeable. Mrs Wright described how, even though it was August and very hot, she insisted on wearing long sleeved tops and long trousers to work in order to cover up the scarring. She refused to wear a swimming costume even when sunbathing in her own garden. Luckily, Mrs Wright’s husband strongly suggested seeking legal advice in order to see if a dog attack compensation claim could be made. The Wright family’s initial worry was that even seeking legal advice would be an expensive ordeal. They found, however, that this was not the case and retold the story of the dog attack in the park to legal professionals.

A successful dog attack compensation claim was made and Mrs Wright received reconstructive surgery. She later described how the dog attack compensation had ‘renewed her zest for life’; now that she no longer had to worry about other people seeing her scars.

Reconstructive surgery following a dog bite can be very expensive and victims often have to learn to live with serious scarring if they do not seek out good legal advice and dog attack compensation. Oliver Meaden, 21 from Newcastle, was bitten by a dog when playing football in a local field with his friends. The football was kicked off the pitch and Oliver ran to retrieve it. Whilst running after the ball, he remembers a large dog beginning to chase him. He recalls being ‘terrified’ and knowing that no matter how fast he could run, that the dog was clearly going to catch up with him. Oliver was right and the dog bit his lower leg before its owner caught up and put the dog back on its lead. The bite looked very serious and the owner of the dog, very apologetically, took Oliver in their car to hospital. Oliver was told that he would sustain an eight centimetre scar running up from his ankle towards his knee. The hospital cleaned, treated and stitched the wound, though Oliver was told that reconstructive ‘plastic’ surgery was not provided by the NHS. Although many of Oliver’s friends thought the scar looked ‘cool’, Oliver was very self-conscious about it. However, he knew that he would be unlikely to be able to afford any cosmetic surgery. This is when Oliver sought legal advice. He actually ended up winning compensation for cosmetic scar treatment – something which affected his life in an extremely positive manner.

Dog attack compensation should always be sought, especially by individuals who have physical, permanent scarring as a result of a dog attack. It helped both Maggie Wright and Oliver Meaden overcome their personal difficulties resulting from being bitten by a dog. Had they not decided to seek legal advice, their lives would still now continue to be affected by the dog attack incidents.

In general, dog attacks seem to fall into three different categories: purposeful dog attacks (that is, the owner of the dog appears to have trained and instructed their pet to attack another human being), precedential dog attacks (that is, the attack could have been predicted judging from the circumstances and treatment the owner provides the dog with) and unprecedented dog attacks (that is, where the outcome of the dog attack would have been difficult if not impossible to predict). A majority of dog attacks in London tend to display qualities from the former two categories. This tells us two things; that the use of dogs as fighting tools or scare tactics is rising in London; that illegal or semi-illegal breeds of dog (for example, pit-bull mixed breeds) are becoming more popular within certain London cultures.

In January 2010 in South East London, a 34 year old man was attacked by a pit-bull mix-breed while he was on his way back from work. He sustained serious injuries on both the upper and lower right leg, which left him in hospital for four days. After the dog attack occurred, reports surfaced that onlookers had witnessed a gang of four hooded youths fleeing the scene, apparently one of them being the owner of the dog. Using new technologies, police were able to trace the owner of the pit-bull mix-breed; he was put to trial and charged under the current dog attack laws. This type of attack falls into the second category of dog attacks: precedential dog attacks. The dog was not actively instructed to attack the victim on his way back from work. However, the part pit-bull breed (a breed widely known for vicious and dangerous behaviour) was not on kept on its lead in a heavily pedestrianised area by its owner. In addition, later reports surfaced that local residents had often witnessed a gang of hooded youths mistreating a dog of a similar description. Accounts of a dog being kicked and tied up by a chain to a lamppost were reported. This type of negligent behaviour clearly contributed to the making of an aggressive, dangerous dog, something which could have been prevented had the owner treated the dog responsibly.

In May 2010, a similar occurred in Brixton, South London, where a 23 year old woman was attacked by a Rottweiler belonging to its owner who lived in the flat above her. The dog attack victim arrived home after a late work shift to find extremely loud music blaring from the flat above her. As she made her way down the stairs to her own flat, after repeatedly knocking on her neighbour’s door to ask him to turn the music down, she found that she was chased by an aggressive Rottweiler – thrown out of her neighbour’s flat in order to follow her. Before managing to lock herself into her own flat, the woman sustained serious hand injuries. Her neighbour was arrested by the police and charged. The dog attack victim in this case, a nurse, gained compensation for emotional trauma and work missed due to the injuries sustained in the attack. It later emerged that people had previously witnessed the Rottweiler owner ‘bragging’ about his ‘scary’ dog in the local area, often threatening to let it off its lead for ‘fun’. This dog attack in this case falls under the category of a purposeful dog attack; the owner fully intended to set his dangerous dog upon his neighbour.

These case studies are just two examples of how dangerous dogs are being utilised by owners to act as a threat to other members of the public. It is important for individuals to remain vigilant against dog attacks and also to seek the appropriate legal advice following any dog attack.

The importance of gaining justice from the current dog bite law is paramount for a victim. Here is one example where justice is not served and a dog bite victim misses out on legal help and advice:

In November 2009, Steve a plumber from Glasgow, was called out to a flat occupied by three university students to fix a dripping kitchen tap. The students were all female and the flat was owned by the father of one of the young women. They kept a pet Dachshund in the flat. This Dachshund had never had any history of being dangerous and had never bitten another dog or human being before. Whilst the plumber was fixing the kitchen tap, the dog began to irritatingly nip the plumber’s ankles. Without wanting to cause offence to his customers, the plumber tried to ignore the dog and continue with his job. The irritating nips shortly began to turn into actual bites, until finally the Dachshund drew blood, causing a serious ankle injury. Steve was forced to abandon the job, as well as cancel any imminent work he had lined up for the near future, in order to allow his ankle wound to heal.

Steve not only suffered a physical injury, but as a self-employed plumber, he also missed out on a significant amount of money and work. After the injury, Steve contacted the owner of the dog, one of the students in the flat. He explained that he had been unable to take any work whilst his injury was healing. The student told Steve that she would get her father, a banker, to give Steve a call so that they could discuss the matter in more detail. A few hours later, Steve received a telephone call from the father who told him that since it was the pet dog’s first ever bite or act of dangerous behaviour, Steve would not be entitled to seek compensation or prosecute, taking into account the UK’s dog bite law. Feeling intimidated, Steve thanked the man for his time on the telephone and ‘wrote off’ the situation as bad luck.

What the Dachshund’s owner’s father quoted is the ‘One Bite Rule’. This is a mythical rule which states that if the dog a victim is bitten by has never bitten another human or dog, then its owner is untouchable legally. This is, in fact, incorrect and Steve would have done better to consult some proper legal advice rather than taking the dog owner’s father at his word. The fact is that the owner can be liable even if the injury caused is a ‘first bite’. Plumber Steve missed out on a possible compensation claim by not knowing his dog bite law facts.

An agitated Schipperke, a breed generally considered to be cute and friendly, had plagued a London apartment complex in Victoria for many years with its consistent, loud yapping and scratching at people’s leg. A young, female banker, living in the flat above the offending dog, had resorted to wearing earplugs to bed every night in a quest to gain a full night’s sleep. However, whilst standing in the building lift one morning in January 2010, the Schipperke and its owner got into the lift. The dog was yapping as usual, but then proceeded to tug at the young banker’s handbag. Pulling her handbag away from the mouth of the dog, the young woman’s hand slipped suddenly and the surprise movement prompted the dog to bite her hand. The young woman was forced to go to hospital. However, she did not seek legal advice because she had previously heard about the Dangerous Dog Act of 1991. Like many, the young woman was under the impression that claims could only be brought against owners of breeds that were classed as being ‘dangerous’ under this Act. She did not consider that the cute and cuddly Schipperke breed could be sued. The young lady may have missed out on a compensation claim by making this incorrect assumption.

Top police force compensation pay-outs:

• Greater Manchester Police approx. £181,000
• Metropolitan Police approx. £96,000
• West Midlands Police approx. £84,000
• Cheshire Constabulary approx. £46,000
• Merseyside Police approx. £43,000
• Nottinghamshire Police approx. £41,000
• Leicestershire Constabulary approx. £29,000
• Police Service Northern Ireland approx. £25,000
• Hertfordshire Constabulary approx. £23,000

A suspect being chased by West Yorkshire Police was paid £15,000 in compensation.

A young teenager who had a phobia of dogs was bitten on the back by a dog belonging to Cheshire Police. He was compensated £10,000.

Kent Police paid £63.03 in dog bite compensation for a torn piece of clothing.

Brian Kiddell made a dog bite compensation claim against the police when he was attacked in Chessington, Surrey. He recalls, ‘Suddenly police officers were there telling me that there was a police dog without supervision nearby. What I felt next was a dog biting my ankle, it wouldn’t let go. The helicopter overhead covered up the sound of my shouts. This was a very scary episode.’

In a case like this, the dog bite law and compensation works in exactly the same way for police forces as it does for the general public. Pensioner Brian Kiddell was injured by a police dog, causing him a great amount of pain and stress. As with any other case, even though this was not the intentional outcome of the owners (i.e. the police), Kiddell was still entitled to make a dog bite compensation claim against the police for his injuries. The police dog was not on a lead or supervised properly in the public allotment area.

This recent survey has caused some public anger at the amount of police money being spent on dog bite compensation. However, dog bite law does and should not exempt police forces from paying out compensation to individual members of the public who have been injured or hurt by a police dog.

Members of the public who sustain an injury by a police dog should not feel that they are not entitled to make a dog bite compensation claim. For example, a man who is out on his evening jog in Sussex turns a sharp corner and surprises a police dog and its owner, who is taking the dog out for some exercise. The police dog is on a lead, but is not wearing a muzzle and jumps up at the jogger. The jogger sustains some scratches on the face and a few small bites on the forearms. The jogger is aware of the fact that the dog belongs to the police force and after exchanging a few words and contact details with its trainer, cuts his evening run short and goes home. However, once he reaches home, he begins to feel uneasy about claiming compensation from the police force; he begins to feel like maybe this is not quite the ‘done thing’. However, the fact that he was bitten by a police dog and that the owner is a police officer should not put him off from claiming compensation. In the end, the jogger decides to seek legal advice on the matter and is told that he is entitled to make a claim for his injuries. Although the dog was on a lead, it was not wearing a muzzle, which allowed it to harm a passer-by. This would be grounds for a claim in any given dog-related injury incident.

This recent report goes some way in showing that dog bite claims can be made by anyone who feels that they have been unfairly injured by a dog, no matter who owns the dog. Victims should never be put off or feel intimidated by the prospect of making a claim.