Draft Dogs Law (Jersey) Amendment Regulations 202- (P.63/2025) – Children’s Rights Impact Assessment

1)  Name and brief description of the proposed decision

The subject of your CRIA may be a proposed law, policy or proposition and in accordance with the Law is referred to in this template as the decision'

• What is the problem or issue the decision is trying to address?

• Do children experience this problem differently from adults?

The  proposed  amendments  to the  Dogs  (Jersey)  Law  1961 (the  decision'),  if adopted,  will  introduce  controls  on  dogs  of  a  type  or  breed  considered  to  be dangerous. There are also some minor amendments in the redraft to update other provisions in the Law.

The decision, if approved, will introduce a registration scheme for dogs meeting the criteria of a dangerous dog' set out in new Article 1B ie meaning if a dog is deemed to be of a type listed (Dogo Argentino, Fila Brazileiro, Japanese Tosa, Pit Bull Terrier and the XL Bully), a person must have regard to guidance (if any) about the dog type published by the States Veterinary Officer (SVO). That guidance includes a dog that may fit the characteristics and measurements of an XL Bully, such as: American XL Bully,  American  Staffordshire  Terrier,  American  Staffordshire  Bull  Terrier, American Bulldog, Cane Corso and Presa Canario.

The above dog breeds and characteristics are defined as dangerous dogs' for the purpose of this CRIA.

As per the decision, dangerous dogs residing in Jersey will be monitored on a case- by-case basis as they come to the attention of the SVO.

Whilst the SVO is currently aware of a number of dogs that may fall within the definition of a dangerous dog, there are currently no powers to control ownership or to impose conditions to enhance public safety, including that of all children.

Conditions imposed in England and Wales on XL Bully' dogs include that the dog must be kept on a lead and muzzled at all times when in public. The dangerous dog must also be neutered, fitted with a microchip, kept in a secure place so that it cannot escape and the owner must take out insurance in respect of the dangerous dog in the event of injury to the public.

The decision aims to mirror the requirements imposed on XL Bully' dogs in England and Wales but the amendments expand to capture all dangerous dogs and enhance ownership restrictions island wide.

The Jersey registration scheme will require the SVO to maintain a register of dangerous dogs and it will be an offence to own a dangerous dog unless it is registered

with the SVO. The registered owner of a dangerous dog must comply with the conditions imposed by the SVO which include:

1. the address at which the dog is kept must be secure to prevent the dog from escaping;

2. advance notification and approval of the SVO to a dangerous dog being kept at a different address;

3. prohibition on breeding and requirements enforced to neuter a dangerous dog;

4. prohibition on abandoning, giving away, selling or transferring a dangerous dog;

5. dangerous dog to be kept muzzled and on a lead in a public spaces at all times and under the control of a person aged 18 or over;

6. the owner must have a valid third-party public liability insurance in respect of the dangerous dog which must be approved by the States Veterinary Officer; and
7. the dangerous dog must be microchipped.

The decision also provides that the owner and any person in control of a dangerous dog in a public space – must be aged 18 or over. This differs from England and Wales where a person aged 16 and over may be the owner of a dangerous dog. This means that in Jersey, children of 16 and 17 years of age will be prohibited from being registered as the owner of a dangerous dog, being the sole carer of a dangerous dog or walking a dangerous dog by themselves in public. This difference in age is proposed due to the risks associated with owning a dangerous dog, including the size of the dogs, ownership and walking restrictions, potential aggressiveness of the dangerous dogs and that children of the ages of 16 and 17 rarely live in their own property or are financially independent.

Furthermore, setting the age of dangerous dog ownership to a minimum 18 years of age means that an owner will be prosecuted as an adult for the actions of their dangerous dog and that this ownership responsibility is not diminished due to the owner being under the age of 18.

The weight of fairness and safety to hold a 16 or 17 year-old responsible for a dangerous  dog  and  adhere  to  the  proposed  ownership  restrictions  are  deemed inappropriate, given the unlikelihood of 16 and 17 year-olds being responsible for their own accommodation and financially independent.

The decision would positively impact the safety of all children and adults in the same way.

2)  Which groups of children and young people are likely to be affected?

Groups of children could include early years, primary or secondary education; young adults; children with additional learning needs; disabled children; children living in poverty; children from particular ethnic backgrounds; migrants; refugees; care experienced children and LGBTQ+ children

All children are likely to be positively impacted by the decision to amend the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961, which if adopted, will introduce controls on dogs of a type or breed considered to be dangerous. The aim is to mitigate the risks of dangerous dog attacks, by monitoring and limiting the numbers and locations of dangerous dogs across Jersey for present and future generations' safety.

3)  What is the likely impact of the proposed decision on children and on their rights?

• Identify any potential positive OR negative impacts and include indirect impacts on children and their rights as described in the UNCRC

• Will different groups of children be affected differently by this decision?

The measures set out in the draft Law are intended to reduce the likelihood of children sustaining injuries caused by dangerous dogs. At the extreme, it is conceivable that this could impact a child's right to life, whilst introducing these controls supports children's right to protection from violence, injury and neglect; to safely engage in play and recreational activities and to ensure their best interests are a primary consideration.

No  negative  impacts  have  been  ascertained  as  the  decision  seeks  to  improve children's rights and safety in Jersey.

4)  Is a full Children's Rights Impact Assessment required?

If you have identified impacts on children and their rights, a full CRIA should be completed. If no impacts are identified then a Full CRIA is not required, but please explain your rationale and how you reached this conclusion

Yes, as impacts on children have been identified, a full CRIA is required.

Right to Life survival and development (Art 6)

X

☐

Respect for the child's views (Art 12)

☐

☐

Civil Rights

& Freedoms

Right to birth registration, name and nationality (Art 7)

☐

X

Right to an identity (Art 8)

☐

X

Freedom of expression (Art 13)

☐

X

Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Art 14) Every child has the right to think and believe what they choose

☐

X

Freedom of association (Art 15)

Every child has the right to meet with other children and to join groups and organisations

☐

X

Right to Privacy (Art 16) including family and home life

☐

X

Access to information from the media (Art 17) Right to access reliable information from a variety of sources, in a format that children can understand

☐

X

Protection against torture or other cruel, degrading or inhumane treatment or punishment (Art 37(a))

☐

X

Family Environment and Alternative Care

Respect for the responsibilities, rights and duties of parents (or where applicable, extended family or community) to guide their child as they grow up (Art 5)

☐

X

Responsibilities of both parents in the upbringing and development of their child (Art 18)

☐

X

Children must not be separated from their parents

against their will unless it is in their best interests (Art 9)

☐

X

Family reunification (Art 10)

☐

X

Abduction and non-return of children abroad (Art 11)

☐

X

Right to a standard of living that is good enough to meet the child's physical and social needs and support their development (Art 27)

☐

X

Special protection for children unable to live with their family (Art 20)

☐

X

Best interests of the child in the context of Adoption (Art 21)

☐

X

Review of treatment whilst in care (Art 25)

If a child has been placed away from home for the purpose of care or protection (for example, with a foster family or in hospital), they have the right to a regular review of their treatment, the way they are cared for and their wider circumstances.

☐

X

Protection from violence, abuse or neglect (Art 19)

X

☐

Recovery from trauma and reintegration (Art 39) Children who have experienced neglect, abuse, exploitation, torture or who are victims of war must receive special support to help them recover their health, dignity, self-respect and social life.

☐

X

Basic Health and Welfare

Rights of disabled children (Art 23)

☐

X

Right to health and health services (Art 24)

☐

X

Right to social security (Art 26)

☐

X

Right to adequate standard of living (Art 27)

☐

X

Education, Leisure and Cultural Activities

Right to education (Art 28)

☐

X

Goals of education (Art 29)

Education must develop every child's personality, talents and abilities to the full

☐

X

Leisure, play and culture (Art 31)

Every child has the right to relax, play and take part in cultural and artistic activities

X

☐

Special Protection Measures

Special protection for refugee children (Art 22)

☐

X

Children and armed conflict (Art 38 and Optional Protocol #1)

Governments must do everything they can to protect and care for children affected by war and armed conflict.

☐

X

Children and juvenile justice (Art 40)

Right to be treated with dignity and respect, right to legal assistance and a fair trial that takes account of age.

☐

X

Inhumane treatment and detention (Art 37 (b)-(d)) Children should be arrested, detained or imprisoned only as a last resort and for the shortest time possible.

☐

X

Recovery from trauma and reintegration (Art 39) Children who have experienced neglect, abuse, exploitation, torture or who are victims of war must receive special support to help them recover their health, dignity, self-respect and social life

☐

X

Child labour and right to be protected from economic exploitation (Art 32)

☐

X

Drug abuse (Art 33)

☐

X

Sexual exploitation (Art 34)

☐

X

Abduction, sale and trafficking of children (Art 35)

☐

X

Protection from other forms of exploitation including for political activities, by the media or for medical research (Art 36)

☐

X

Children belonging to a minority or an indigenous group (Art 30)

☐

X

Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography

☐

X

Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict

☐

X

6)  Information and research

What evidence has been used to inform your assessment?

Evidence collected (include links to relevant publications)

What did the evidence tell you?

What are the data gaps, if any?

Recent public authority

Proposed dangerous dog controls mirror those of England and Wales – with variations deemed appropriate for Jersey.

Government of Jersey Plan for 2024-2027 includes big picture outcome goals' which include:

- children to feel safe.

- be active in public spaces (including parks and beaches) – which are areas where children may encounter dogs. -protection from violence (violence could be caused by a dangerous dog if secured measures in law are not adopted and enforced)

There is a risk to child safety  in  public  by the presence  of  dangerous dogs  should  the  safety measures  (obligatory muzzle and lead wearing in public) breeding and

Without a change in the Law there is a gap for dangerous dogs to be increased in Jersey and bred as there are currently no ownership restrictions, no breeding controls nor public safety measures in place. The decision is preventative before the numbers of dangerous dogs increase in Jersey and changes mirror those adopted in England and Wales.

surveys and strategies

- Reference to UK legislation: Ban on XL Bully dogs - GOV.UK

- Strategies and plans | Children's Commissioner for Jersey

- CYP Youth Friendly Plan.pdf

- The Children and Young People Survey (2024) JCYPS 2024 report.pdf

- Dog Attack Statistics By Breed In 2025 – Forbes Advisor

- Jersey Government FOI response Accident and Emergency dog

attack patient numbers

ownership  restrictions not be adopted.

7)  Engagement with children

What groups of children and young people (or those who speak on their behalf, such as social workers, teachers or youth workers) have been directly or indirectly involved in developing the decision?

Groups consulted

How they were involved

What were the findings?

CRIA for the Bridging

Reference was made to these resources and published reports.

The Island Plan seeks to protect and enhance the amount of open space available across the island, including adequate, safe open space being essential for the wellbeing of children, supporting them actively and socially for all children in Jersey to grow up safely.

The decision to protect children from dangerous dogs in public and in areas of play such as beaches, parks, leisure and sport facilities, together with access to the natural woodland environments, cycle and footpath routes is therefore a direct impact on children.

Children's safe access to these facilities will directly support the physical and mental wellbeing of children and their carers.

Island Plan

The Children and Young

People Survey (2024)

The Children's

Commissioners Office

published report called

'Life on the Rock'

Dangerous Dogs and

Safeguarding Children

Strategies and plans |

Children's Commissioner

for Jersey

CYP Youth Friendly

8)  Assessing Impact on children's rights

Based on the information collected and analysed above, what likely impact will the proposed decision have on the specific children's rights identified in question 5)?

Relevant UNCRC Articles (rights) identified in Q5

Describe the positive or negative impacts on these rights

Which group(s) of children are likely to be affected?

UNCRC link

Best interests of the Child

Best interests of the Child

All children are impacted by the potential presence of

dangerous  dogs  in  public

spaces  and  the  proposed

decision  aims  to  enforce

the  children's  rights,  as

described  by  the

aforementioned  positive

impacts.

Children aged 1 to 4 are the most  likely  victims  of  a fatal dog attack. Dog bite incidents  are  much  more likely  to  result  in  death when animals attack young victims. 29.4% of fatal dog attacks  involved  a  victim between the ages of 1 and 4 in the United States.

While very young children and toddlers within this age range experienced the most dog-related fatalities of any demographic  group, slightly older children were also at a high risk. 56.7% of all victims killed by dog attacks were 16 or under in the United States.

Children are more likely to be  the  victims  of  dog attacks for many reasons, including  an  inability  to recognize  cues  signalling potential  aggression  in canines,  a  childish propensity  to  engage  in behaviours  that  can  be

(Art 3) to be a top priority:

The  introduction  of  the decision  is  deemed  to have  solely  positive impacts,  reinforcing  the best interests of children, their safety and protection in public.

The  decision  aims  for dangerous dogs in public to be muzzled and kept on a lead in public and that there  are  restrictions  on ownership  of  dangerous dogs and prohibitions on their breeding.

This  captures  children's safety  and  protection  in their areas of play in all public  spaces,  including beaches  parks,  public footpaths, woodlands and any  areas  in  which children  may  encounter dogs.

Right to Life survival and

1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all appropriate legislative and administrative measures.

3. States Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform with the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision

Right to Life survival and

development (Art 6):

development (Art 6)

The  introduction  of  the decision  reinforces Article 6 that every child has  the  right  to  life, survival and development. The  presence  of dangerous  dogs  without the proposed restrictions, as detailed in the decision present a potential risk to all children's  safety, life and  both  physical  and emotional  wellbeing should they be exposed to a  dangerous  dog  (which presents itself to be out of control, aggressive or

Protection from violence,

triggering to dogs such as

running and squealing and

their  smaller  size  which

makes them vulnerable and less  able  to  survive  an

attack.

The  above  enhances  the necessity  to  ensure measures are implemented to mitigate risks of children encountering  dangerous dogs in public and in play facilities.

1. States Parties recognize that every child has the inherent right to life.
2. States Parties shall ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.

Protection from violence,

abuse or neglect (Art 19)

abuse or neglect (Art 19)

The introduction of the decision reinforces child protection against violence and aims to secure and enhance child safety in public spaces.

Leisure, play and culture

1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child

Leisure, play and culture

(Art 31)

Every child has the right

(Art 31)

Every child has the right

to relax, play and take

to relax, play and take

part in cultural and

part in cultural and

artistic activities

artistic activities: The

Article 31

1. States Parties recognize the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to

introduction of the decision reinforces Article 31 that every child has the right to rest, engage in play and take

participate freely in cultural life and the arts. 2. States Parties shall respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and shall encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural, artistic, recreational and leisure activity

part in recreational activities.

The decision will seek to enhance these rights by securing children's safety in public areas and leisure facilities, particularly outdoor areas (ie beaches, sport facilities and parks) where there is a potential encounter with a dangerous dog.

9)  Weighing positive and negative impacts

• If a negative impact is identified for any area of rights or any group of children and young people, what options are there to modify the proposed decision to mitigate the impact?

• Could any positive impacts be enhanced?  

No negative impacts identified by the introduction of the proposed dangerous dog amendments.

Positive impacts:

- The  safety  and  protection  of  children  in  public  are  a  priority  and therefore  measures  need  to  be  introduced  on  dangerous  dogs  (ie prohibited from being walked in public off lead and obligated to wear a muzzle);

- Secure address to prevent a dangerous dog from escaping;

- Restrictions on dangerous dog ownership; and

- Dangerous dogs will need to be neutered/spayed and not bred from, thus reducing the population of such animals over time.

10) Conclusions

In summary, what are your key findings on the impact of the proposed decision on the rights of Jersey children?

Positive impacts only

All children will be positively impacted by the decision to amend the Dogs (Jersey) Law 1961, which if adopted, will introduce controls on dogs of a type or breed considered to be dangerous. The aim is to mitigate the risks of dangerous dog attacks, monitor and limit the numbers and locations of dangerous dogs across Jersey for present and future generations' safety. The ultimate aim is for Jersey to be a safe place for children.

No  negative  impacts  have  been  ascertained  as  the  decision  seeks  to  improve children's rights and safety in Jersey.