MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Doubt it even more. I could be scared of inner city youths due to their violent reputation, and worry about being hit if walking past a group of them. That’s not assault. If you think it is then you have zero credibility on the above.
Yes, it’s nonsense of course. To reiterate, TJ’s stance here is that if you walk your dog, under control, calmly past someone, and that person happens to be scared of your dog, that is illegal, and that person is within their rights to defend themselves by attacking your dog. Thousands of people are breaking this law every day. It’s a Scandal. Why are the police not doing anything to stop this?
Assult is a simple thing with no classifications. Its as defined above. Its often combined with other ofenses
IIRC in order of seriousness:
assault ( no physical contact required)
assault and battery ( physical contact - no significant injury)
assault with actual bodily harm ( a treatable injury???)
assault with grievous bodily harm ( a significant injury)
aggravated assault is if the assault is combined with something else like racism
You can’t just go around being professionally offended.
I don’t know there’s a few on here that do just that.
NOpe – does not have to be deliberate IIRC. Seriously dude – go read the law and guidance. NO contact is needed for it to be an assault. If you feel threatened by somone even if the do not intend to be threatening it can be an assult.
I know it can include unintentional or reckless actions/behaviour as you note above. I'm not saying there needs to be contact for an assualt. My point still stands that it needs to be proven based on actions/behaviour of the person/animal in question doing the threatening, not just a feeling by the person being threatened.
Angeldust - I have asked you several times to stop making stuff up. that is not my stance.
My stance is I have a perfect right to go about my life undisturbed by your dog. If you let your dog bother me in any way you are breaking the law. Most dog owners have no idea of the law as you have shown. Many dog owners routinely break the law.
One of the few things I remember from the year I spent studying at Guildford College of Law is that assault does not require any actual contact.
Just the one year at that esteemed establishment? What were you studying 🤣?
angeldust
Yes, it’s nonsense of course. To reiterate, TJ’s stance here is that if you walk your dog, under control, calmly past someone, and that person happens to be scared of your dog, that is illegal, and that person is within their rights to defend themselves by attacking your dog.
To be fair to TJ though, all the dog would have to do would be "look mean" (subjective) snarl, or growl at the "victim and you have a case.
tjagain
Assult is a simple thing with no classifications. Its as defined above. Its often combined with other ofenses
IIRC in order of seriousness:
assault ( no physical contact required)
Could you give examples of assault convictions with no physical contact for context please?
Same as if you are worried someone is going to hit you that is assault even if they do not
Can we get them pts for this too?
If you let your dog bother me in any way you are breaking the law.
My friends dog does bad farts that bother me. Maybe I can get it arrested next time?
<mod>
Can we conduct this discussion without the relentless bickering, pedantry, point-scoring and ad-hom arguments please? We'll have to close the thread otherwise.
Thanks.
</mod>
Remne - nope - read the law. reckless actions can constitute assault Its the perception of the person being assulted that counts.
and in the case of the dangerous dogs act the law is clear that if the person feels threatened that is enough ( specific in the statue) so long as that fear passes a basic reasonableness test - and reasonable has a specific meaning in law
Quote me something that shows I am wrong? Happy to be corrected as AA did over the reasonable test
jimjam - I quoted above from the CPS website
Here it is again
"
<h2>Specific Offences</h2>
<h3>Common Assault, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988</h3>
An offence of Common Assault is committed when a person either assaults another person or commits a battery.
An assault is committed when a person intentionally or recklessly causes another to apprehend the immediate infliction of unlawful force.
relentless bickering, pedantry, point-scoring and ad-hom arguments
Hhmmmm.
That’s pretty much exactly why I pay my subscription.
WWWOOOFFFFF!!!!
Angeldust – I have asked you several times to stop making stuff up. that is not my stance.
Come on TJ, you can do better than this. Below is your direct post from early in this thread that you still haven't addressed:
angeldust – sorry – I thought your dog had barked and scared someone. So only one breach of the law not two
So, how is this not your stance? What is the one breach of the law you are referring to here?
some good reading here in laymans language
https://criminal-defence-solicitors.com/assault/
What’s more, physical contact is not always required to support an allegation of assault. If you shout threats at someone, or take an action that leads them to believe that violence is imminent, then the offence of assault has been committed. So, in the absence of a physical act of violence it is the state of mind of the victim that is relevant in these cases.
It is also important to know that silence itself can be assault e.g making silent phone calls to a person might cause that person to be afraid that they may come to immediate harm and therefore is classed as assault.
.....................................
Section 39 Common Assault: A charge of Common Assault requires no physical contact at all so can be a raised fist, a shouted threat or even a text message threatening violence. Providing the victim believes the threat to be true and apprehends imminent violence then the charge would be proven in court.
I think I have chewed this bone enough.
I shall step away before I upset cougar further.
TJ’s stance here is that if you walk your dog, under control, calmly past someone, and that person happens to be scared of your dog, that is illegal, and that person is within their rights to defend themselves by attacking your dog.
No, it's not.
The letter of the law, as I understand it, is that it's ok to take reasonable steps to defend yourself if you believe that you're in danger (and even if you're not, it's sufficient to believe that you were for the purposes of your own defence).
In the situation you describe, someone who was scared of dogs is unlikely to spontaneously believe they were under threat of imminent attack, but rather they'd just extricate themselves from the situation.
The hypothetical and non-existent straw man you've chosen to build is essentially describing someone with a mental illness. Which is a whole other can of worms. If you can cite a legal case where the defence offered was "I saw a dog and I'm frightened of dogs so I killed it" was ever offered then we can talk. Otherwise you're just talking mince for the sake of having an argument.
No rational person ever behaved in the way you describe ever and is unlikely to do so. The astoundingly simple counter-argument to a defence of "oh, I thought I was in danger from a poodle asleep 20 yards away so I stabbed it" is "no, you didn't."
"One of the few things I remember from the year I spent studying at Guildford College of Law"
and how much of that time was spent playing bar billiards in the Brittania?
I think I have chewed this bone enough.
I shall step away before I upset cougar further.
Well that was disappointing. I thought it was dangerous to corner an angry dog, but he just left with a whimper and his tail between his legs. Convenient place for him to bow (wow) out though, leaving the issue unanswered. Poor show.
Just the one year at that esteemed establishment? What were you studying?
Law Society Part 1s. Then I decided that law was not the career for me and went off to be a motorcycle despatch rider.
and how much of that time was spent playing bar billiards in the Brittania?
A lot of it. And a lot more in the Onslow Arms in Cranleigh.
References:1994 SCCR 697
Ratio: A Boxer dog had attacked and bitten two children on a swing in a children’s play park. The court found that the dog which was in the charge of the appellant entered the play area. It was not on a lead. It approached the swings and circled round them and then started to bark and jump at the two children. One of the children began to scream, whereupon the dog bit that child in the foot. It then bit the other child on the leg and bit the first child again on the leg. This child got off the swing and started to run away. The dog bit her arm. It was at that point that the appellant intervened, caught the dog and put it on a lead’. The sheriff had noted the terms of section 10(3) saying: ‘Having regard to the evidence, I took the view that during the course of the events on (the date of the incident) the dog became dangerously out of control because, as matters developed, there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that it would injure someone, although there were no such grounds at the outset’.
Held: The sherrif’s approach was rejected: ‘The occasion which arose in this case, to which the definition in section 10(3) should be referred, was the occasion of the incident described in the findings. That was a single incident and it was an incident at the beginning of which this dog was found not to be dangerously out of control. Since it was a single incident with no appreciable interval, there was no stage at which it could be said that there were grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog would injure any person before it was all over and the dog was put on the lead. Accordingly, the essential basis for a finding of guilt on this charge was not present’.
References: [2009] ScotHC HCJAC_101
Ratio:The defendant appealed against her conviction for having her dog dangerously out of control in a public place. She said there had been insufficient evidence to justify the finding. The dog was said to had attacked and bitten another dog, and then gone on to bite another.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it is of no consequence in applying the statutory test that it may have taken eight minutes or more to separate the dogs. It is equally of no consequence that the witnesses found the incident frightening. The fact is that this was one incident at the beginning of which the dog was not dangerously out of control as defined by section 10(3). There is no finding to that effect. The sub-section speaks of ‘any occasion’. One is entitled to ask, on which occasion were there grounds for reasonable apprehension that this dog would injure someone? On the facts found the question is not, in my opinion, answered.’
From an actual real life lawyer.
Put briefly, it is very difficult for criminal liability to be applied to you when your dog has previously been of good behaviour. It may sound silly but your dogs previous convictions may impact on whether you will receive a criminal conviction!
Happy to be corrected as AA did over the reasonable test
Can I have this framed so I can hang it up in the bog?
No problem AA. Happy to be corrected if I get stuff wrong and happy to admit it.
rene - here is a dog destroyed for one bite
<p class="contextmenu internal_Body">A dog sentenced to death for dangerous behaviour will be destroyed.</p>
<p class="contextmenu internal_Body">Gus, an eight-year-old Jack Russell, was earmarked for destruction following a magistrates’ court hearing in November.</p>
<p class="contextmenu internal_Body">Owner Susan Goodfellow, 62, of Whitehaven, admitted three offences of being in control of a dog which was dangerously out of control on three dates last March.</p>
<p class="contextmenu internal_Body">On the first , a male was bitten and injured by the Jack Russell close to Goodfellow’s home in Whitehaven’s New Street.</p>
<p class="contextmenu internal_Body">Days later the dog repeatedly lunged at another man and grabbed his trousers, while the pet was also out of control when police came calling on March 29.</p>
<p class="contextmenu internal_Body">Goodfellow was handed a community order, and a ruling was made that the dog should be destroyed</p>
~and another
the statute is quite clear. No bite is needed for the dog to be dangerously out of control under the act, the persons fear is the key point.
Faux-flounce?
the statute is quite clear. No bite is needed for the dog to be dangerously out of control under the act, the persons fear is the key point.
I never said there needs to be a bite. There does need to be behaviour though to lead to the fear. The fear itself is not enough.
It is equally of no consequence that the witnesses found the incident frightening.
From the actual court case I quoted above.
Your first case shows repeated demonstrable behavior. Your second case, well...
Representing herself in court, Sewell said she did not want her pet to be destroyed and that she had always kept dogs. “It was one occasion,” she said.
She should have got a decent lawyer.
easy if the person says they are scared thats all it needs. Thats how the law is written. Same as if you are worried someone is going to hit you that is assault even if they do not
You seem to have missed the "reasonable apprehension" bit again.
It is also important to know that silence itself can be assault e.g making silent phone calls to a person might cause that person to be afraid that they may come to immediate harm and therefore is classed as assault.
How about a hard glare?
Eurgh. Like two marbles in a chicken carcass!
Go and look at the context in which it occurred. sbob was making a point about angeldust’s debating technique. He was not accusing, or implying that any spousal abuse had taken place.
It's almost like you're not stupid!
Hat's off onwheelgood.
You might get it even if the wife beaters don't.
This thread has all the makings of a classic.
You can't actually use self defence as a defence if you can't prove that you had no reasonable chance of escape. If a dog is on a lead, even if it is acting very aggressively and you are in real fear of injury, you would need to prove that it had you cornered or the owner was chasing you with it, to prove that you were justified in attacking it.
Definitely report it. Make sure the wound doesn't get infected also.