Dangerous dogs: when are warning signs and fences not enough?
A dog owner may believe that they have taken sensible precautions: a gate, a fence, a warning sign or a place where parcels can be left that the dog(s) should not be able to access. But the courts will look beyond the mere existence of those measures. The important question is whether they were adequate for the risk that actually existed and whether they were likely to protect the people who could foreseeably visit the property.
The Court of Appeal's decision in R v Hopkins [2026] EWCA Crim 1083 illustrates that point. Three large dogs attacked a delivery driver at a private address. Although the owner had taken some precautions and had no previous convictions, the court upheld a suspended prison sentence. The case is a useful reminder that a sign or temporary barrier will not necessarily amount to an effective system of control.
What happened in R v Hopkins?
The victim was delivering a parcel to an address near Whitland in Carmarthenshire. She had not delivered there before. The entrance was secured with a piece of string and she did not see any clear warning telling her not to enter or directing her to leave the parcel outside the boundary. She went to the door and knocked.
Three Carpathian Mountain dogs, each described as roughly waist height, rushed out and attacked her. All three dogs bit her. The injuries included serious damage to her hand and tendons, and she required surgery followed by a further operation.
The owner ran an animal sanctuary and had 29 dogs. She said that the dogs were trained and that she believed adequate arrangements were in place. Those arrangements included temporary fencing, a box for deliveries and small signs near ground level stating “No entry” and “Beware of the dog” (nb. dog singular). She also said that other delivery drivers had not approached the house in the way this driver had.
The owner went to the driver's aid and took her to hospital. She later pleaded guilty to the aggravated offence of being the owner of dogs that were dangerously out of control and caused injury. The issue before the Court of Appeal was the sentence, rather than whether the offence had been committed.
The law applies on private property
Under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, it is an offence for a dog to be dangerously out of control in any place in England and Wales. The law is not confined to public roads or parks. It can apply in a house, garden, driveway or business premises, and it applies to dogs of every breed and size.
A dog is treated as dangerously out of control where there are grounds for a reasonable belief that it will injure a person or assistance dog. An actual injury to a person makes the offence much more serious, this is call the aggravated version of the offence. Where a person is injured, the maximum sentence is five years' imprisonment, although the actual sentence depends on the seriousness of the injury, the offender's culpability and the surrounding circumstances.
There is a limited exception for a householder case involving a trespasser, such as a buglar, in a dwelling. It does not give a dog owner a general defence when a person with a legitimate reason for visiting, such as the postman, a delivery driver, tradesperson, etc., attends the premises.
The prosecution does not have to prove that the owner wanted the dog to attack or predicted an attack would occur. The offence is concerned with keeping dogs under proper control. Questions can arise about whether an owner's act or omission contributed to the situation and whether an unexpected third-party act was outside anything the owner could prevent, but a lack of intention is not itself a defence.
Why were the precautions inadequate?
The central problem was that the measures were not properly directed at the foreseeable risk. This was a property where deliveries could be expected. HHJ Rees – who from the author’s experience is a reasonable and fair-minded judge – felt that a first-time visitor needed to understand that large aggressive dogs were present and that a parcel should be left outside. Small signs at ground level did not communicate that message effectively. Nor did a gate held with string provide a reliable physical barrier.
The Court of Appeal agreed that the arrangements were wholly insufficient. Safety measures had to address the risk that existed: people visiting the property. The fact that the owner had a delivery box did not help if an unfamiliar driver could not clearly see that it was to be used instead of approaching the house.
The court was also entitled to find that an attack on a visitor was reasonably foreseeable. That did not depend on proof that the dogs had attacked someone before. The size and number of the dogs, the way they were kept and the ordinary likelihood of people approaching the property all formed part of the assessment.
The court should ask itself whether the measures put in place were suitable, visible, secure and effective to meet the risk posed by the dog(s). It might be that these precautions were suitable when dealing with a small docile dog but where there were 29 dogs on the premises, including large aggressive dogs a small sign and a piece of string were clearly insufficient.
How the court assesses culpability
The Sentencing Council guideline for a dangerously out-of-control dog causing injury divides culpability into three levels.
High culpability includes cases in which a dog was used as a weapon, trained to be aggressive, known to be prohibited, or kept in defiance of an official warning or order. Medium culpability includes a lack of safety or control measures where an incident could reasonably have been foreseen. Lesser culpability can include genuine safety measures, an incident that could not reasonably have been foreseen, a momentary lapse or prompt attempts to regain control.
Those descriptions are not boxes that can be selected by pointing to one favourable fact. The court weighs the case as a whole. In Hopkins, the owner had taken some steps and did come to the aid of the victim after being called by the victim on the telephone, but the preventative arrangements were so inadequate for visitors that the case did not fall into the lesser-culpability category. The absence of previous convictions and the owner's conduct after the incident were mitigating features; they did not change the basic assessment of how the attack came to happen.
Harm is assessed separately. Serious physical injury or serious psychological harm falls into the highest harm category. Lesser injuries fall into lower categories. The combination of harm and culpability provides the guideline starting point, after which the court considers aggravating and mitigating features and any reduction for a guilty plea. The victim in Hopkins was bitten so badly the bones in her arm were visible!
The sentence the Court of Appeal upheld
The Judge Rees sitting in Cardiff Crown Court imposed nine months' imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, with 150 hours of unpaid work and £10,000 compensation. In reaching that sentence, the judge took account of the guilty plea, the owner's previous good character, the fact that this was an isolated incident, her help for the victim and the permanent fencing installed afterwards.
The owner argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive because precautions had existed and the attack was not reasonably foreseeable. The Court of Appeal rejected that argument. The sentence properly reflected the serious injuries and the failure to put in place measures capable of protecting a foreseeable visitor.
A dangerous-dog conviction can also lead to a destruction or contingent destruction order concerning the dog, and the court may disqualify an offender from having custody of dogs. Those decisions require a separate assessment of public safety, including the dog's temperament and previous behaviour, the suitability of the premises and whether the owner is a fit and proper person to be in charge. It is not clear from the case report whether any of the dogs involved were destroyed but it should be noted that the default position is that a destruction order will be made unless the court is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to public safety.
What precautions should an owner consider?
There is no single arrangement that will be sufficient for every property or every dog. The measures must be matched to the risk. Where a dog may react aggressively to visitors, the starting point is a secure physical separation that a visitor cannot casually open or pass. Signs should be prominent, legible and positioned where they will be seen before a person enters. Delivery instructions should be unambiguous and should direct the driver to a safe place outside the dog's area.
Owners should also consider what happens when the front door is opened, when children or guests are present, when a tradesperson needs access, and when the usual person controlling the dog is unavailable. A system that works only if everyone already knows the dogs are there will not protect an unexpected visitor.
Changes made after an incident can demonstrate responsibility and reduce future risk, but they cannot undo the original failure. Photographs, measurements, veterinary or behavioural evidence, delivery instructions and evidence of the dog's history can all become important if liability or sentence is disputed.
Facing a dangerous-dog allegation
Dangerous-dog cases require careful attention to the precise layout of the property, the condition of gates and fences, the visibility of signs, the dog's history, the sequence of events and who was in charge at the time. The prosecution account should not be accepted simply because an injury occurred, but an owner should not assume that good intentions or the existence of a warning sign will answer the allegation.
When you contact Chetwode Criminal Defence Solicitors we can advise on liability, obtain and test the relevant evidence, instruct an appropriate canine behaviour expert where necessary and present the issues that bear on sentence and the future of the dog. Early preparation is particularly important where the court may be asked to make a destruction or disqualification order.