UK Offence Report

Subject to sub-paragraph (2), it is an offence when being in charge of a dog on land to which a dog control…

paragraph 1(1) of SCHEDULE 2 of The Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

1 Subject to sub-paragraph (2), it is an offence when being in charge of

a dog on land to which

a dog control order (described as

a “Dogs on Leads Order” in the form set out below) applies, not to keep the dog on

a lead or on

a lead of

a maximum length prescribed in the order, during such times or periods as may be prescribed.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds
a person
Conduct
breaching the provision
Fault element
Strict liability
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

What would breach paragraph 1(1) of SCHEDULE 2?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

  1. Doing what the provision prohibits, or failing to do what it requires under the Dog Control Orders (Prescribed Offences and Penalties, etc.) Regulations 2006.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status
Status not determined
Made
5 April 2006
In force from
Not determined
Extent
E

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations, which apply in England, come into force on 6th April 2006. Further to Chapter 1 (control of dogs) of Part 6 (in particular, sections 55 to 58) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 (c. 16) (“the Act”), under which certain authorities are empowered to make dog control orders, these Regulations prescribe for the purposes of section 55 of the Act the offences that may be provided for in any such order (regulation 3(1) and Schedules 1 to 5). The offences are: a failing to remove faeces deposited by a dog on land in respect of which a Fouling of Land by Dogs Order applies (Schedule 1, paragraph 1); b failing to keep a dog on a lead on land in respect of which a Dogs on Leads Order applies (Schedule 2, paragraph 1); c failing to put, and to keep, a dog on a lead, when directed to do so by an authorised officer, on land in respect of which a Dogs on Leads by Direction Order applies (Schedule 3, paragraph 1); d permitting a dog to enter land in respect of which a Dogs Exclusion Order applies (Schedule 4, paragraph 1); and e taking more than the maximum number of dogs onto land in respect of which a Dogs (Specified Maximum) Order applies (Schedule 5, paragraph 1), in each case without reasonable excuse or without the consent of the owner, occupier or other person or authority who has control of the land. The offences of failing to remove dog faeces and of permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded do not apply to a person who is registered as a blind person or to a person who has a disability in respect of which he relies on the assistance of a dog trained by a specified charity; the offence of permitting a dog to enter land from which dogs are excluded also does not apply to a person who is deaf in respect of a dog trained by a specified charity. The Regulations also prescribe, in fulfilment of the requirement in section 56(1) of the Act, the maximum penalty which may be provided for in a dog control order (regulation 3(2)); this shall be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale (that is, at the time of making these Regulations, £1,000). In respect of the content and form of a dog control order, the Regulations specify the wording that must be used in providing for an offence in such an order (regulation 4(a), and in paragraph 2 of Schedules 1 to 5), and in all other respects require that a dog control order (including an order amending a dog control order) shall be in the form set out in the appropriate Schedule, or in a form substantially to the like effect as that form (regulation 4(b), and in paragraph 3 of Schedules 1 to 5; in respect of an amending order, regulation 5 and Schedule 6, paragraph 1). A full regulatory impact assessment of the effect of the then Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill was prepared (dog control orders are dealt with on pp. 58–60), and was deposited in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament; copies of it are available from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6DE. A separate regulatory impact assessment has not been produced for these Regulations as they have no impact on the costs of business.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

Other offences in the same instrument

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source