CWU Bite-Back Campaign Royal Mail Group Support:

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Letter to Branches




No. 1000/11
Ref P18
Date: 25 November 2011

To: All Branches,


Dear Colleagues,

CWU Bite-Back Campaign to Change The Law on Dangerous Dogs - Royal Mail Group Support:

Following meetings and progressive discussions, Donald Brydon Chairman of Royal Mail Group has confirmed that henceforth Royal Mail Group will give its full backing to the CWU 'Bite-Back' Campaign. Our recent 'Joint Statement' signed by 20 organisations included Royal Mail and they are currently considering a number of ways to back the campaign including a Conference of employers with employees affected by dog attacks and a public enquiry.

We have requested that improvements are made to the dog attack compensation scheme and that the 'door to door' leaflet delivery service be used to raise awareness of
dangerous dogs issues, dog control and compliance with the law by Royal Mail customers. Please see attached correspondence for your information. Further reports
will be made in due course. The Royal Mail proposals are 'in confidence' at this stage to maximise impact when launched and therefore this information should not be publicised outside of Royal Mail/CWU Branches.


Yours Sincerely



Dave Joyce
National Health, Safety & Environment Officer



















---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

23 November 2011


Donald Brydon Chairman
Royal Mail Group Ltd
100 Victoria Embankment
London
EC4Y 0HQ
 
 
 
Dear Donald,
 
CWU Bite-Back Campaign to Change The Law on Dangerous Dogs:
 
Many thanks indeed for your 3 November communication.

I trust by now you have managed to read my lengthy letter of 28 October detailing the history and progress of the campaign and I hope you've been able to read
through the rather large bundle of selected file papers I sent,  at your request, from the 'Bite-Back' Campaign File. You'll be well up to speed by now I've no doubt.

Once again, my sincere thanks and appreciation for your personal endorsement and for your confirmation and assurance that Royal Mail Group fully supports the
'Bite-Back' campaign. This means a great deal to me and to our members, Royal Mail employees. This support has already become publicly evident through Royal
Mail Group Head of Safety Keith Scott's attendance at a 'Campaign Coalition' meeting of all supporting organiations and Royal Mail's endorsement of the recent
'Joint Statement' and No 10 Downing St petition.

I very much welcome your proposal and willingness to organise and set up an independent enquiry in to Dog Attacks, to run alongside our campaign and contribute
to the work being undertaken as well as adding support to ensure that the objective of protecting Postal Workers from attacks by dogs is given further impetus.
I look forward to hearing from you, once you have identified a Chair and look forward to discussing with you the composition of the enquiry team members. 

I accept the point you make in relation to treating this as confidential for the moment in order to maximise publicity and impact from this initiative at the most
appropriate time.
 
Turning now to your request for a summary of the legal background that I have prepared in order that Royal Mail Group can look at its ability to exercise
prosecuting powers on its own initiative;

Scotland and Northern Ireland
(1) In relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland, the new Laws are now in place and I believe Royal Mail Group should adopt a policy or procedure whereby:-
(a) Firstly, if a dangerous threatening, menacing dog is identified on a Delivery Round by a Postman/Postwoman then as a matter of course it should be reported
to the Local Authority Dog Warden with a request from Royal Mail that a Dog Control Notice (DCN) is served on the owner.  The provision for serving a DCN
now exists under the new laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland and is a new preventative measure which allows an enforcement officer to serve such a notice
on an owner where a dog for which they are responsible is being allowed to be aggressive or dangerously out of control, in either a public or a private place but
the dog in question has not yet been involved in an attack. The officer may serve the DCN which specifies the steps the officer considers need to be taken by the
owner in order to comply with the Law and to prevent the likelihood of an attack.
(b) Secondly,  following an attack on an employee, the business as a matter of course should establish contact with the Police and CPS and press for the
appropriate prosecution to take place under the new Scotland and Northern Ireland legislation .

England and Wales
(2) In relation to England and Wales, until new Laws are introduced Royal Mail Group should adopt a policy or procedure whereby:-
(a) Firstly , if a Postal Worker is attacked in a public place then Royal Mail as a matter of course establish contact with the Police and CPS and press for the
appropriate prosecution to take place under the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act (Private land and premises remain excluded at present).
(b) Secondly, if a dangerous threatening, menacing dog is identified on a Delivery Round by a Postman/Postwoman then as a matter of course it should be
reported to the Local Authority Dog Warden and Police who may speak to the owner and request they take more care in ensuring the animal does not pose a
risk although they cannot do much more than that until an attack takes place under the current ineffective laws. The only Dog Control Orders (DCOs) currently
available in England and Wales under the existing Law relate to the control of dogs in parks and open spaces etc and enforce the law regarding dog fouling
not allowing a dog to enter areas designated as dog exclusion areas (e.g. playground etc) and keeping a dog on a lead in areas designated as a 'dogs on leads'
areas - enforced by fixed penalty notices. They therefore do not deal with the problems Postal Workers face.
(b) Until we get the Law changes we want then all we have available to us in the Dogs Act 1871 which is where I would like to see Royal Mail Group look at its
ability to exercise prosecuting powers on its own initiative via Royal Mail Solicitors, that following dog attacks on Postal Workers, through a new automatic
process - lodging complaints to the Magistrates Court under Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871. This is a civil (not criminal) complaint-although heard at a
Magistrates’ Court, it therefore operates on a lower standard of proof - 'on a balance of probabilities' rather than 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. It is important
to note that the Act can be applied to both public and private places. Civil proceedings, commenced by way of complaint, can be taken by the police, local
authority or individuals. A complaint can be made to the Magistrates’ Court that a dog is dangerous, and not kept under proper control. It is the dog’s owner
who is proceeded against (as opposed to someone in charge of the dog at the time). If it appears to the court that the dog is dangerous, the court may make an
order directing the dog be kept under proper control by the owner, or destroyed. There is no presumption In favour of destruction of the dog. The question
before the court is - is the dog dangerous? The court can look at the dog’s general disposition, they may consider evidence including character evidence from
a behaviourist who has examined the dog, a vet, neighbours, friends & family etc. If the dog has behaved dangerously on one occasion only - there might be a
defence in that the incident is not sufficiently exceptional to prove that the dog has a dangerous disposition or character. (that's why it's important to report and
get recorded all incidents, near misses etc). Magistrates’ can make an order in any circumstances where they find a dog to be dangerous, they have discretion
when deciding what to do. The High Court (England & Wales QBD) ruling of 'Briscoe v Shattock' in October 1998 held that a dog could be considered ‘dangerous’
and ‘not kept under proper control’ as defined by Section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871, when the only danger shown was to other dogs, not to humans. The
Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 allows for appeals to the Crown Court against any Dogs Act 1871 s.2 order. It also gives additional powers to the magistrates under
the Dogs Act 1871, provides enforcement provisions for any breaches of any control order imposed under the 1871 Act and allows a Magistrate to disqualify
an owner from having custody of a dog. Section 3(5)(b) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 enables magistrates, to make an order under the 1871 Act, to specify
the measures to be taken for keeping a dog under proper control – including muzzling, keeping on a lead and exclusion from specific places. An order to
neuter a male dog can be made if it appears that the dog would be less dangerous if neutered. The Court however has no power to fine, imprison or order
compensation to a victim. The owner if found guilty however may have to pay court and prosecution costs. The applicant risks costs being awarded against
him/her if failed. The Police do not have powers under this Act to seize and detain a dog pending a legal hearing. There is a time limit for proceedings - which
must be laid at the Court within 6 months from the incident. Taking forward an 1871 Dogs Act complaint privately through Royal Mail costs around £200. I have a
number of Police, Lawyers or Local Authority contacts who would be perfectly happy to talk you or one of your colleagues through the process and assist if necessary.

There is some controversy over injuries to and amputations of Postal Workers fingers through letter boxes of which we have recently seen a high number.
Some Third Party Insurers have been attempting to defend Personal Injury Claims on the basis of 'Trespass' by the Postal Worker.  I have raised this with Defra
and their Officials and Lawyers believe that Postal Workers fingers through letter boxes is not trespass and the courts would likely support that view.

One expert has advised me that in relation to the 1871 Act, the Home Office Circular advice and subsequent DEFRA Guidance is slightly incorrect, in that this Act DOES NOT
apply to all private places. Front gardens and footpaths etc certainly would be covered but following the ruling in 'Philip and Wright' case in 1940, it was ruled that the Act only
extends to those private areas where there was an 'implied right of access' although this would definitely cover a front garden, footpath etc,  he thinks this may present a
problem with fingers through letter boxes etc and he concludes that such cases may not be covered. This needs to be examined in my view against Royal Mail delivery staff's
obligations to deliver mail to every UK address under the Postal Services Act 2000. That may overcome the problem he identifies but it needs further consideration.

In conclusion the Dogs Act 1871 does have a number of serious limitations and certainly need replacing along with the 1989, 1991 and 1997 Dangerous Dogs Acts and other
Acts but until the law changes it is all we have to work with and we need to get it used more.

In relation to participants in your Public Enquiry, I would suggest some possibles for you to consider as Trevor Cooper a Solicitor for 23 years and has wide ranging expertise
on the laws relating to dogs. Ian McParland  retired Police Officer who spent many years in the Met Police Dangerous Dogs Unit and now is a private consultant on the subject.
Claire Robinson RSPCA Government Relations Officer. Claire Horton Chief Executive of Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. Clarissa Baldwin Chief Executive of Dogs Trust.

Finally, in relation other matters where I think you and the Royal Mail Group can assist the campaign to improve various aspects:-
(1) Use the Royal Mail's own Door To Door leaflet drop service to raise awareness of the public in relation to legal responsibilities of dog owners, responsible
ownership, microchipping, a drive to get householders and tenants to fit Letter Box Cages to avoid finger bites and bringing their attention to new Dangerous
Dogs laws i.e. Scotland and Northern Ireland now - and hopefully Wales and England in 2012. We can organise mail shot leaflets and post cards to the public etc.
This has been done in the Midlands to a limited degree with post cards asking owners to keep their dogs under control when Postal staff are delivering the mail.
(2) Make improvements to the Royal Mail Dog Attack Victims Compensation Scheme.  It hasn't been improved for some time and many don't
even know it exists. When I wrote to Mark Higson requesting this consideration some time ago, he didn't reply.
(3) Organise a Conference, inviting other companies and organisations who have staff visiting houses and commercial premises where their staff become dog
attack victims, in order to gain their active support e.g. Utility workers, gas, water, electricity, meter readers, refuse collectors, Telephone engineers, home
helps, district nurses, meals on wheels, council officials and services workers  etc. I believe Keith Scott RMG Head of Health is working on this.
(3) We have launched our 10 Downing Street Petition as you will know and I would like your assistance in communicating with every Royal Mail Group employee
either or both via a Front Page Courier article and a letter to all staff. (see attached press release).

I trust the above information is as you require and I look forward to our further discussions on this important matter.


Best Regards
 
 
Dave Joyce
CWU National Health, Safety & Environment Officer
 
========================================================================================================================== 
 

3 November 2011

Dave Joyce
National Health and Safety Officer
CWU
150 The Broadway
Wimbledon
London SW19 1RX
 
Dear Dave,
 
There has been some confusion about the extent to which Royal Mail Group supports the Bite-Back Campaign that you have so ably led. 
So that there can be no doubt, I want to assure you that the Group fully supports your campaign.
 
As we have discussed I think an independent enquiry, running alongside your campaign and the work undertaken by management, would
add support to ensure that the objective of protecting our colleagues from attacks by dogs is given further impetus.
 
To that end I am in the process of identifying an independent Chair for such an enquiry.  I would see it as having three strands to its work:
(a) establishing a fact base of current practice, law, risks and injuries;
(b) identifying actions taken in other industries and in other countries to mitigate the risks;
(c) making recommendations for action by all parties involved, including both national and local lawmakers.
 
Once I have identified a Chair I will be happy to discuss with you the composition of the enquiry members.  I propose that we treat this as
confidential for the moment in order that we can make the maximum publicity impact from this initiative at the most appropriate moment.
 
In the meantime I wonder if you would send me the summary of the legal background that I know you have prepared in order that the
Group can look at its ability to exercise prosecuting powers on its own initiative.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
Donald Brydon
Chairman
Royal Mail Group 

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Sign up to support reform of the law on dangerous dogs
21 November 2011

The campaign to change the law on dangerous dogs has stepped up a gear with the launch of a new petition
calling on the Government to bring forward new legislation in the Queen’s Speech.

A group of 20 organisations, including the Communication Workers’ Union (CWU), Royal Mail, the RSPCA and
the Police Federation, is behind the petition, which would force a House of Commons debate if more than
100,000 people sign up to it at:- http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22631" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The group was moved to launch the petition because of the lack of concrete action following last year’s
DEFRA consultation on dangerous dogs, and assurances from Prime Minister David Cameron to the CWU in
April 2010 that changes would be made.

The new petition demands that the Government bring forward a Bill in next year’s Queen’s Speech to
consolidate and update dog-control legislation, with a greater focus on responsible ownership, increased
flexibility for enforcers, and more effective court penalties.

Said the CWU’s Dave Joyce: “Despite the fact that the Royal Mail delivery workforce suffers 5000-6000
dog attacks a year, the majority of irresponsible dog-owners are not prosecuted under the current laws,
which are totally inadequate, and the delays in taking action by the Government can’t continue. I’m
appealing to everyone ail to log on and sign the electronic petition and help us put pressure on the
Government to act.”

Reform of the law would also, the campaign believes, result in savings to the public purse in the form of
lower enforcement and NHS treatment costs.

The CWU’s ‘Bite Back’ campaign has been running for four years, during which time both the Scottish
and Northern Irish Governments agreed to change the law. The union has also commenced discussions
with the Welsh Government, but the major concern, it says, remains the lack of action in Westminster
over changing the law in England. Details are here:- http://www.cwu.org/dangerous-dogs-bite-back.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Organisations behind the petition include the Communication Workers Union, Battersea Dogs & Cats
Home, The Blue Cross, British Small Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), British Veterinary Association
(BVA), Dogs Trust, GMB, Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, International Institute of Risk and Safety
Management, Kennel Club, National Dog Wardens Association, Police Federation, Prospect, Royal Mail
Group, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, RSPCA, UNISON, Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied
Workers, Unite and Wood Green, The Animal Charity.

[brothermagrew]

Now exists under the new laws in Scotland and Northern Ireland and is a new preventative measure which allows an enforcement officer to serve such a notice.

More correctly and with regards to Scotland, what does exist in the new law the Control of Dogs (Scotland) Act 2010 is for an "authorised officer" to serve such a notice.

Section 1(6)
In this Act references to an “authorised officer” are to an officer appointed for the
purposes of this Act by a local authority; and each local authority must appoint at least
one such officer.

Trevor Cooper I have read is the legal consultant to the Dogs Trust.