Although the Dangerous Dogs Act has not been proclaimed, the DPP can still initiate proceedings against dog owners for criminal negligence under common law. Owners must think of the consequences of having dangerous dogs. The concept of negligence relates to the common law belief, developed in judicial cases over hundreds of years, that every individual owes a duty to other individuals. Breach of that duty is a legal lapse that is punishable either by a lawsuit, by criminal sanctions, or both.
Criminal negligence is a legal term used to describe actions that are so egregiously negligent or outstandingly bad as to be considered criminal. Generally, intent is an element of most crimes, which means that a person cannot be found guilty of a criminal law unless he performed an intentional action (the mens rea) that violated common law. Criminal negligence however is an alternative way to satisfy the mens rea requirement and find someone like the dog owners guilty of a crime. Accordingly, the dog owners in Palmiste and recently Edinburgh, Chaguanas, may be held criminally responsible because of the following:
• With criminal negligence failed to secure the dogs and the dogs made an unprovoked attack on another person not on the owner's property that caused serious bodily injury to the boy child in Palmiste and death to the adult victim in Edinburgh.
• Knew the dogs are "dangerous dogs" and breached their reasonable expected standard duty of care and supervision to secure their dogs in a safe enclosure, and the dogs made an unprovoked attack in both instances on the public roadway that caused the said serious bodily injury and death.
In order for negligence to be punished as a crime, the action must extend beyond ordinary negligence. Failure to behave in a reasonable manner alone cannot stand in for the required intent element of a crime. However, it is basic common sense that these dangerous dogs, when left unsupervised and in an uncontrolled environment, to wit an enclosure which is compromised by openings for egress, would endanger life. Behaviour that is as negligent as in the instant cases where it is almost guaranteed to cause injury constitutes criminal negligence.
The standard for negligence is a reasonable person standard. This means that when the court determines whether an individual behaved negligently and breached his duty of care the court will determine how a reasonable person would have behaved in that situation and will then compare that to how the defendant in the particular case behaved. If the defendant's behaviour falls short of what the reasonable person would have done, the defendant can be considered legally negligent. Apart from the criminal charges, the dog owners would also be liable under civil suit for pecuniary damages with the possibility of their property being ultimately put up for sale to satisfy this huge compensation. Now owners, "Beware of Bad Dog!"