Campaigners have been given the green light to bring a High Court challenge against the Government's decision to ban XL bully dogs in the UK.
Dog owner Sophie Coulthard and the campaign group Don't Ban Me, Licence Me are taking legal action against the Department for Environmental and Rural Affairs (Defra) over breed being added to a banned list under the Dangerous Dogs Act in October last year. Since the ban came into effect in February, it has been a criminal offence to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales without an exemption certificate, meaning unregistered pets will be taken and their owners facing fines and prosecutions.
It comes after the Government introduced the ban following a number of attacks on people and a Mirror campaign to overhaul the Dangerous Dogs Act following a string of fatal attacks. But campaigners argued the Government's ban is unlawful and irrational, claiming it was based on "unreliable material that lacked a "proper" analysis over its impacts and "vague" standards that risked people unknowingly committing a criminal offence.
The Government's ban came into effect in February (Getty Images)A spokesperson Don't Ban Me, Licence Me told the Mirror earlier today: "The prime ministers decision to ban the XL bully was a knee jerk reaction and beyond that, we believe unlawful and that proper process was not followed. That is why we are challenging the legislation by asking for a Judicial Review
"There is an issue with dogs in this country and we’ve seen the dog population and dog-related incidents rise in the last few years, but we don’t believe a breed ban will solve the problem. We have seen five serious attacks involving a different breed in the last few weeks alone. While the legal challenge is specifically challenging the legislation around the XL bully, as a campaign group we believe in licensing for all dogs. Having seen the success of dog licensing in other countries, we think the government should be looking to a better solution for the long term and the future of responsible dog ownership."
Man fined £165 after outraging the internet by dying puppy to look like Pikachu
Government lawyers today said the legal challenge should be dismissed and that the campaigners' arguments are "meritless." At a hearing in London on Wednesday, judge Mrs Justice Dias said campaigners had an “arguable” case in certain areas, granting permission for the challenge to proceed to a trial at a later date. Cathryn McGahey KC, representing campaigners, said the ban came from a “hasty” announcement by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in September last year, the day after a fatal dog attack, which led to legal errors.
In written arguments, the barrister said Defra has “no material on which to base a rational decision that dogs involved in recent attacks were disproportionately of XL bully type”. She said the Government estimated there were 10,000 XL bullies in the UK, but 57,301 have been registered.
Campaigners got the green light to challenge the ban (Getty Images)Ms McGahey said there was no analysis of the numbers of other dog types involved in fatal attacks, adding: “If five XL bullies have been involved in fatal attacks out of a population of 50,000, and one German shepherd dog out of a population of 10,000, then XL bullies are no more dangerous than German shepherds.”
“Before seeking to impose a ban, the defendant should have conducted proper research into the types of dogs in fact involved in serious attacks,” the lawyer said. Restrictions on owners, which include keeping dogs on a lead and muzzled in public, would not stop attacks as the “vast majority” took place in homes or on private property, the court was told.
Ms McGahey claimed the Government had done no work to determine whether “those with mental health conditions would be particularly adversely affected, or whether children with autism or other medical conditions who relied on their dogs would suffer a detriment”. She said XL bullies, while not recognised as a breed by the UK Kennel Club, were recognised in the US, adding the Government was wrong to decide it has the characteristics of a dog bred for fighting.
“No-one ever appears to have been prosecuted for using an XL bully as a fighting dog,” the judge was told. It was “impossible” for owners to tell whether their dog was a banned type or not due to the “unlawful vagueness” of the Government’s XL bully standard, the barrister said.
“For many dog owners, a criminal conviction may be career-ending, losing to the loss of employment and ultimately their home,” Ms McGahey added. Ned Westaway, for Defra, said it had been “rational” to conclude that XL bullies had the characteristics of fighting dogs due to their connection to pitbull terriers. He said the Government’s XL bully standard had been “carefully and sensibly thought about” and was not unlawful.
Campaigners have challenged the Government's ban saying parts of it are "vague" (Getty Images)He said an assessment found there was no “particular or disproportionate” impact on certain groups of people, with there being “no reason to think the issue of impact was not conscientiously considered”. In written arguments, Mr Westaway said ministers were aware the number of XL bullies could be higher than 10,000, adding: “Even if the number is substantially greater than 0.1% of the UK dog population, XL bully type dogs would still have been responsible for a disproportionate, and concerning, number of dog attacks since 2020”.
He said the conclusion that the dog type are “disproportionately responsible for recent dog attack fatalities” did not depend on population size, arguing it was not practicable to compare it against other types. Mr Westaway said that “evidence of a larger population would have made the decision more, not less, likely.”
The Mirror previously launched its Time For Action On Danger Dogs campaign calling for an overhaul to the Dangerous Dogs Act as Brits continued to be seriously injured in vicious dog attacks.
Dog who 'always melts hearts' with his smile hopes to find a loving family
The Mirror's demands are...
1) The overhaul of the Dangerous Dogs Act. An Urgent review of the law is needed and tougher penalties should be considered.
2) Enforce the rules to stop the illegal and irresponsible breeding and selling of dogs.
3) A public information campaign to promote the importance of responsible dog ownership and the need for training.
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
