Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2014
Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2014-0530, written 5 Dec 2014. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.
| Date of report | 5 Dec 2014 |
|---|---|
| Reference | 2014-0530 |
| Deceased | Jade Anderson |
| Coroner | Alan Walsh |
| Category | Other related deaths |
| Source | judiciary.uk record · original PDF |
| Responses published | 1 |
Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.
REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS (1) NOTE: This form is to be used after an inquest. REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS THIS REPORT IS BEING SENT TO: 1, Lord De Mauley, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, House of Lords, London, SW1A OPW CORONER I am Alan Peter Walsh, Area Coroner, for the Coroner Area of Manchester West CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS I make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 and regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013. INVESTIGATION and INQUEST On 27" March 2013 I commenced an investigation into the death of Jade Sarah Louise Lomas Anderson, 14 years, Born on 9" March 1999. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on the 24" October 2014. The medical cause of death was 1a) Multiple Injuries. The conclusion of the inquest was Jade Sarah Louise Lomas Anderson died as a consequence of injuries sustained by her when she was attacked by more than one dog. CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH 1. Jade Sarah Louise Lomas Anderson died ti bn the 26" March 2013. 2. At the time of her death Jade was visiting a friend, called | atl and she had stayed overnight at the address from the 25" March 2013 into the 26" March 2013. 3. She was attacked by more than one dog at the address at or about 14:20 hours on the 26" March 2013 when she was alone in the premises. She suffered multiple injuries consistent with multiple dog bites by more than one dog. The attack occurred i who resided at the premises, left the premises for a short time to visit a neighbour and there was no other person present in the premises at the time of the attack. 4. The occupiers of the premises had five dogs namely two large Mastiffs called Buddy and Neo, two Staffordshire Bulldogs called Ty and Skye and one Shih Tzu called Charlie. The Shih Tzu called Charlie was kept in a cage in the lounge at the premises and Charlie remained in the cage during the attack. The two large Mastiffs and the two Staffordshire Bulldogs were kept in the kitchen in the premises with the Mastiff called Buddy in a cage secured with bolts and dog clips. 5. | who was 16 years of age at the time of Jade’s death, was residing at : : with her mother and step-father. At or about 13:00 hours on the 26" March 2013 her parents left the premises to go sho leaving EEEMMand Jade alone in the premises. Before they left # put the dogs into the garden of the premises so that the dogs did not = _— when her parents were leaving. After her parents had left took Jade through to the living room of the [iccured and then brought the dogs back into the kitchen secured the large Mastiff called Buddy in the cage in the kitchen with the bolts and the dog clips. closed the kitchen door leaving the three remaining dogs free to roam in the kitchen and she then put the Shih Tzu called Charlie in the cage in the living room. 6. At or about 14) i nd went to a neighbour a to warm a pie for Jade's lunch because the Microwave in the premises was broken. Jade stay a romises whilst J went to the neighbours’ house and left Jade in the living room with the door to the kitchen closed. Wher returned, approximately five minutes later, she opened the door to the kitchen and saw Jade on the floor of the kitchen with all the dogs, apart from the Shih Tzu, surrounding her. ii ran back to the neighbours’ address and the Emergency Services were called. When the Emergency Services arrived Jade was found deceased in the kitchen at the premises. The Shih Tzu was still in the cage in the living room and the four other dogs were roaming free. 7. The Emergency Services discovered that the large Mastiff called Buddy had escaped from the cage in the kitchen at the premises. The cage in the kitchen was found to be bent out of shape with a broken dog clip in the bottom of the cage. The door on the cage had been secured by two sliding bolts. The top bolt was still in place but the lower bolt was not in its securing loop. A police officer was able to pull the bottom of the door away from the cage, without much effort, leaving a gap through which a dog would be able to escape. 8. At the Inquest a Forensic Pathologist, gave evidence that she was satisfied that the dog bites causing the multiple injuries and leading to Jade's death had been caused by more than one dog although she could not be satisfied as to the number of dogs involved in the attack. CORONER'S CONCERNS During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you. The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows: 1. During the Inquest evidence was heard that i. Jade died when she was attacked by more than one dog, who were out of control at the time of the attack. It is likely that the attack occurred when Jade went into the kitchen and the evidence indicated that she may have gone into the kitchen to answer a mobile telephone which had been left in the kitchen and which was known to have received a call at or about the time of the attack. ii. _An inspection of the premises at Pl a revealed a sign to the left of the front door ‘Beware of the Dog - Enter at_your own Risk’. The premises were small and housed two adults, a five dogs, a cat and a parrot. The dogs of the type and number described raised concerns with regard to potential problems in relation to interaction and dominance issues in a confined area. There was no evidence of dog toys or purpose made dog beds to keep the dogs occupied and provide enrichment for them and there was no evidence of any dog collars or leads within the premises. There was no evidence that the dogs were given regular exercise or went out of the premises, other than to roam in the confined space of the rear garden. ii. In the past four years the number of dog bite incidents that required hospital treatment has risen by 26% and the number of convictions for possessing prohibited dog types (three dog types) has risen by 146% whilst the number of convictions for not keeping dogs under control rose by 5%, which indicates that the approach set out in current Legislation is not working and continues to put public safety and animal welfare at risk. iv. The Legislation on dog control is scattered amongst many different pieces of Legislation and this does not include a range of secondary legislation. The main pieces of Legislation are within more than 10 statutes commencing with the Metropolitan Police Act 1839 and culminating in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which comes into force in England and Wales in May 2014. The provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 were welcomed during the evidence but the evidence was that the recent Legislation did not go far enough to address the problem of the control of dogs, which had led to an increase in dog bite incidents. The evidence indicated that only consolidated and updated vi. vii. Legislation would ensure that the public, owners of dogs and enforcers of the Legislation have a clear understanding of what is expected and what powers can be used. The current Legislation provides for controls over the possession of four types of dogs and the Legislation is breed specific by reference to the type of dog rather than the behaviour of a dog. The evidence was that the behaviour of a dog is more important than the breed. The Legislation is supported by a considerable amount of case law determining aspects of different pieces of Legislation, which often results in confusion amongst law enforcement practitioners (for example, dog wardens, police officers and other agencies) in selecting the best piece of Legislation to use leading to a lack of effective and consistent enforcement throughout England and Wales. This has often resulted in confusion amongst the public in terms of what is expected of them as responsible dog owners, as well as which agency should receive a complaint. An update and consolidation of dog control Legislation based upon up-to-date scientific understanding of dog behaviour and in particular aggression, which is not based upon a breed specific approach would assist front-line practitioners in relation to the control of dogs and the enforcement of Legislation so that the number of serious incidents could be reduced and prevented. The evidence indicated that Legislation should not be based upon a breed specific approach and instead focus on the behaviour of the dog and the owner / person responsible for the dog. Furthermore it should allow for significantly earlier intervention so that serious incidents could be prevented. The Legislation tends to be reactive rather than proactive so it is difficult to prevent serious incidents from occurring. The evidence indicated that if the Legislation was proactive enforcement would be available at an early stage prior to incidents having occurred and would lead to the prevention of serious incidents. The key aspect that is missing from the current approach to tackling dog bites is educational awareness about staying safe around dogs. The RSPCA is currently developing an education package for schools, families and others that provide simple and clear information about dog behaviour and in particular the signals dogs can give when they are stressed or uncomfortable in a situation. During the course of evidence I received a leaflet produced by the RSPCA and named ‘Dogs and Children, a Guide to staying safe’ with six golden rules for keeping a child safe and a dog happy. The evidence indicated that a coordinated approach to ensure that all ‘at_risk’ groups receive consistent and up to date information about dog behaviour is needed and other groups of people that may benefit from such an approach would be those who deliver to properties and services providers. Problems arising from the lack of control of dogs increases with an increase in the number of dogs in the country. The evidence was that there are nine and a half million dogs in the country and the practice of dog trafficking from abroad is prevalent, which increases the problem of dog control. The evidence indicated that the Licencing of dogs with central records would assist front-line practitioners in the control of dogs and the enforcement of Legislation. The evidence indicated that a key issue in the control of dogs is to make owners responsible for their dogs and dog owners need to take sufficient steps to ensure that their pets are well socialised and under control so that they do not pose a risk to other people. The care of dogs, including proper exercise, and the provision of dog toys and purpose made dog beds, for example, would keep dogs occupied and provide enrichment for them, which would reduce the number of dog bite incidents. There is a need to educate dog owners in relation to such matters. The evidence raised concerns that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken to review the above issues. 2. I request you to consider the above concerns and to carry out a review with regard to the following :- The consolidation of existing Legislation in relation to dog control to include secondary Legislation. The Legislation relating to the control of dogs to be proactive, and not reactive, and the behaviour of the dog should be the focus of the Legislation rather than the present breed specific Legislation. The Legislation to focus on the responsibility of dog owners for the control of their dogs. The Licensing of all dogs with a system of central records to assist the control of dogs and the enforcement of legislation. The training and education of dog owners and children in relation to the control of dogs and the welfare of dogs to raise awareness about staying safe around dogs and the signals that dogs can give when they are stressed or uncomfortable in situations which are likely to lead to the risk of dog bites. Consideration of the dissemination of material and information either by leaflets or by use of the media could be included in the review. Enforcement of the Legislation, to include a training programme for Police and Local Authorities to deal with complaints and enforcement of the Legislation. Iam aware that front-line practitioners, including the RSPCA, would be prepared to participate in any consultation process as part of a review. ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN In my opinion urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths and I believe you and the Government your organisation have the power to take such action. YOUR RESPONSE You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report, namely by 30" January 2015. I, the coroner, may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed. COPIES and PUBLICATION I have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested Persons: 1) 2) Local Safeguarding Board. I am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. Dated Signed 5 December 2014 Alan P Walsh
1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.
,. Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs Mr AP Walsh HM Area Coroner Paderborn House Howell Croft North Bolton BL 1 1 QY RIEC!ellV!ED 02 FEB 2015 ---------------- helpline@defra.gsi.gov.uk www.gov.uk/defra Nobel House 17 Smith Square London SW1 P 3JR lg January 2015 From Lord de Mauley Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Natural Environment and Science Thank you for your letter of 8 December with which you enclosed a report of the death of Jade Anderson together with your recommendations for action. Let me first say I was deeply saddened to hear of the death of Jade Anderson and the circumstances in which it happened. I have met Jade's mother and step-father and on behalf of the whole of the Government we pass on our condolences to Jade's family and friends for their tragic loss. The Government is serious about tackling irresponsible ownership of dogs which is why we , have recently changed the existing law in two important respects. In May last year we extended the scope of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 so that it is now an offence to allow any dog to be dangerously out of control in any place, including inside the dog owner's property. At the same time, we increased the maximum penalty for allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control and it killing someone from 2 years' imprisonment to 14 years; and if the dog injures someone the increase was from 2 years' imprisonment to 5 years. In addition, there is also a separate offence of allowing a dog to attack an assistance dog which attracts a maximum sentence of 3 years' imprisonment. It is important to understand that the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is not just about banning certain types of dog. It also makes it an offence to allow any dog of any breed or type to become dangerously out of control. It therefore covers both deed and breed. We have also responded to calls for the law to be more proactive. To this end, we made sure that the new measures to deal with anti-social behaviour, in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime & Policing Act 2014, could be used to tackle such behaviour when it involves irresponsible ownership of a dog. These new laws mean that police and local authorities now have powers to intervene in cases of low level dog nuisance, before a serious incident occurs - for example, a dog running loose in a park or near a road, a dog that threatens visitors or even a situation where there are too many dogs on a property and it is having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality. This means that action can be V'~ ,-'I.Al~ ) INVESTORS t¥~.t"'" -:~,,..\._t ~ j IN PEOPLE I taken before a dog becomes dangerous. The new powers came into effect on 20 October 2014. To help the police and local authorities use the new measures appropriately, Government produced a comprehensive Practitioner's Manual. You can find the Manual on this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/oublications/dealinq-with-irresponsible-dog-ownership- practitioners-manual The Manual was drawn up with the cooperation of the practitioners themselves and animal welfare charities and has been widely welcomed. There are a number of scenarios envisaged in the document which help the practitioners deal with a range of specific incidents they might face, including complaints relating to dogs on a property. In addition to the manual there is also a comprehensive training programme for police officers on the new laws on dogs. The police, in particular, are responsible for enforcing the law on dangerous dogs. Despite the law on dangerous dogs being in more than one statute, which is not unusual, the police have specifically trained officers to deal with such complaints - Dog Legislation Officers (DLOs). Nearly all forces have DLOs and where these are not available, they can be obtained from neighbouring forces. Local authorities also have access to dedicated Dog Wardens to deal with stray and displaced dogs. These too are specifically trained to handle dogs and are familiar with the law in this area. I therefore consider that training is already available to enforcers and that consolidation of the legislation on dangerous dogs is not a priority. You also requested the re-introduction of the dog licence. Compliance rates in countries where such a scheme operates currently are not very high - typically around 40% or 50%. Indeed, this was one of the reasons the dog licence was abolished in this country in 1988. A low rate of compliance makes it difficult for a dog licensing scheme to be effective. However, whilst I do not support dog licensing, I do support compulsory microchipping of dogs. Microchipping has clear advantages for both dog and owner in that they can be reunited much quicker if the dog strays or is lost. It provides a permanent link between owner and dog. There will be a link between the available microchip databases to ensure that the owner of a dog can be ascertained quickly. Since we announced compulsory microchipping will be introduced in April 2016 numbers of dogs that are microchipped have risen from around 58% to 70% which shows that owners can see the benefits. Microchipping of dogs will not necessarily prevent dog attacks but it does encourage a level of responsibility in the owner and will achieve some of the desired benefits of a licensing scheme. I also note what you say about education and training of children around dogs. As you point out, there is already good work being carried out by the RSPCA in this area. Similarly, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the Kennel Club all provide helpful advice about children and dogs, and we have been able to give them financial support to help them with this work. As the recognised experts in this area, I think the charities are better placed to give this advice to dog owners and keepers, and they are more likely to be heeded than a Government leaflet. We and the charities are also working with the leading websites carrying advertisements for dogs to improve information for owners. Overall, I consider that the actions we have taken recently, and those we are proposing to take, will have a positive impact on instances of irresponsible dog ownership. Thank you once again for your letter and report. ( ' \ INVESTORS ~_,/ IN PEOPLE
See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Alan Walsh, and how often a new one appears.
What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text
Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.
These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.