Tim Everett’s most recent case in the Legal and Enforcement group on RIAMS Communities highlights a High Court case from earlier this year focusing on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
In R (on the application of Golding) v Maidstone Crown Court and the Chief Constable of Kent Police  EWHC 2029 (Admin), the Court was required to consider whether the decision of the Magistrate’s Court, which had been upheld by the Crown Court, that the dog was a pit bull-type dog and was, therefore, a prohibited breed.
The High Court made three conclusions in deciding this case; it also confirmed that when challenging a refusal by a Magistrates Court or Crown Court to state a case on a point of law when asked to do so, is to seek Judicial Review of that decision.
The High Court confirmed that
When considering whether to make a destruction order under Section 4B of the 1991 Act as amended in respect of a pit bull terrier or other specified breeds, the Court must make such an order, unless it is satisfied that the animal is not a danger to public safety.
If so satisfied then, and only then, should it consider exempting the dog and making a contingent destruction order subject to the mandatory controls required by the legislation being applied within the time given.
The approach in applying Section 4B as set out in Grant and followed by the magistrates and the Crown Court Judge, in this case, was the correct one.
You can read the full summary on this case, with Tim Everett’s comments by clicking here to access the Legal and Enforcement community. Don’t forget to click ‘Follow’.
You can also read the full legal judgment here.