Search

Abstract We present a first criminological insight into the Act (2007:1150) on the supervision of dogs and cats in terms of reporting and prosecution statistics, against the background of statistics on authority decisions based on this law, appeals of authority decisions and statistics from Folksam and the central dog register of the Swedish Board of Agriculture. The number of prosecutions under the Supervision Act in the district courts is 30-46 prosecutions per year between 2004 and 2021. Women account for 65% of dog ownership and for 42% of offenses against the Supervision Act. The proportion of reports received that led to a decision by the County Administrative Boards varied from zero to approx. 30% in 2020 and 2021. Of the 13 persons who died due to dog-related injuries 1998-2021 seven were women, in the age groups 45 and older, while of 6 180 patients who required inpatient care for dog-related injuries 2001-2021 made up 648 children of 0-4 years old. Introduction of the current Supervision Act in 2008 resulted in an increased load on administrative courts, while criminal cases in the district courts have been at about the same level as before. Transfer of responsibility for the Supervision Act from the Swedish Police Authority to the County Administrative Boards in 2018 increased the workload of the administrative courts even more. The criminal cases that are settled in the district courts no longer deal with first-time incidents where bite-prone dogs have caused property or personal damage or considerable inconvenience, but recurrences where society already had intervened through authority decisions, reflecting ineffectiveness of authority decisions based on the law. Not to criminalize Section 1 of the Supervision Act and transfer of responsibility for the law from the Swedish Police Authority to the County Admi- ESSAY nistrative boards have reduced the burden on the Police Authority and the district courts at the expense of an increased burden on the County Administrative boards and the administrative courts. The question is what, from a socio-economic perspective, is the best solution to approach the problem of dangerous dogs.

Cattle and sheep horns have the potential to grow in such a way that the horn bends toward the animal’s head and, if left untreated, may penetrate the skin, causing pressure, pain, and suffering. According to the Swedish Animal Welfare Act, animals must be looked after in a way that prevents ingrown horns; otherwise, the person responsible for the animal may be prosecuted. Here, we present a review of 32 legal cases that occurred in Sweden between 2008 and 2022 for which the charge involved horn-related anomalies in cattle or sheep. The aim being to investigate the nature of these horn-related anomalies and the circumstances under which they occur. Of the legal cases, 53% were discovered during official animal welfare control on farms and 44% at an abattoir during pre-slaughter inspection. These include extreme injuries, e.g. both horns penetrating the periosteum into the skull bone, or a horn penetrating into the eye or oral cavity. The reasons offered by the accused for failing to detect animals with horn-related anomalies included that the animal appeared normal, that it was long-haired, shy, or hard to reach, or that the horns had not undergone gradual growth but had accidentally or suddenly penetrated the skin. Overall, 81% of the cases led to convictions; however, none of these resulted in imprisonment. Reasons for acquittals included insufficient crime description or evidence as to how the horn-related anomaly occurred or of the animal being exposed to suffering. A number of recommendations are provided that could help limit the occurrence of ingrown horns.

The aim of this article is to show difficulties arising when courts judge the negligence of dog owners in absence of precise legislation and typical precedents. We analyze the elements of a crime in two cases where children were objects of canine aggression, and show how the courts constructed the issue of dog owners’ negligence. In Case 1 the Court of Appeal found that a foster parent was not negligent when leaving a boy with specific needs alone with a heavily built dog that then repeatedly bit the boy to death despite the owners attempt to pull away the dog. The court also ignored the signs of substandard animal husbandry including previous severe incidents where the dog owner also was injured. In Case 2, the Court of Appeal instead found that the breed of the dog also matter, and that not even adult presence is enough to protect a child from dog attack. Because both the child and the dog could behave unpredictably, continuous observation and supervision was required. In both cases, measures to prevent the incident were available and would have been easy to carry out.