Campaigners have been given the green light to challenge the government’s decision to ban XL bully dogs in the High Court, after the judge ruled they had an “defensible” case.
Bully XL owner Sophie Coulthard and campaign group Don’t Ban Me, License Me are taking legal action against the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the addition of The large American bulldog-type breed has a prohibited list under the Dangerous Dogs Act. October last year.
Since February, it has been a criminal offense to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales without an exemption certificate, meaning unregistered animals will be taken away and their owners possibly fined and prosecuted.
The government’s decision to ban XL bullies follows a series of attacks, some fatal, on people.
(Left to right) Barrister Rebecca Strong, Sophie Coulthard and Rose Downey, head of research at campaign group Don’t Ban Me License Me, outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London, after campaigners were given the green light to take High Court challenge to government’s decision to ban XL bully dogs
Sophie Coulthard outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London. Since February, it has been a criminal offense to own an XL bully dog in England and Wales without a certificate of exemption.
But campaigners argue the ban is illegal and irrational, saying it was based on “unreliable” evidence, lacked a “proper” analysis of its impact and included “vague” standards. » who risked committing a criminal offense without knowing it.
Government lawyers say the legal challenge should be dismissed and that the activists’ arguments are “meritless.”
At a hearing in London on Wednesday, Judge Dias said the activists had “defensible” arguments in some areas, allowing the trial to take place at a later date.
It comes after MailOnline revealed that councils across England have spent thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money destroying XL Bully dogs.
Liverpool council is the biggest spender, costing more than £7,000 to euthanize just 16 XL Bully stray dogs, in what a spokesperson called an “unprecedented level of activity” under the new laws.
The next council to spend the most money destroying the banned breed was Birmingham, which euthanized 45 of 67 dogs found, costing more than £6,000.
Cathryn McGahey KC, representing the campaigners, said the ban was the result of 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 his written submissions, the lawyer said Defra had “no basis on which to base a rational determination that the dogs involved in the recent attacks were disproportionately of the XL bully type”.
She said the government estimated there were 10,000 XL bullies in the UK, but 57,301 had been registered.
XL Bully owner Sophie Coulthard and campaign group Don’t Ban Me, License Me are taking legal action against the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the ban.
Local authorities across the country have been collecting and destroying XL Bullys since the ban was announced. MailOnline chart shows which councils spent the most
Restrictions on owners, including keeping dogs leashed and muzzled in public, would not stop the attacks because the “vast majority” took place in homes or on private property, the official said. court (stock image).
Ms McGahey said there was no analysis of how many other types of dogs were involved in fatal attacks, adding: ‘If five XL bullies were involved in fatal attacks on a population of 50,000 and one dog of German Shepherds 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 appropriate research into the types of dogs actually involved in serious attacks,” the lawyer said.
Restrictions on owners, including keeping dogs leashed and muzzled in public, would not stop the attacks because the “vast majority” took place in homes or on private property, the official said. court.
Ms McGahey claimed the government had done no work to determine whether “people with mental health problems would be particularly affected, or whether children with autism or other medical conditions who depended on their dogs would suffer a prejudice”.
She said XL bullies, although not recognized as a breed by the UK Kennel Club, were recognized in the United States, adding that the government was wrong to decide they possessed the characteristics of a dog bred for fighting.
“No one appears to have ever been prosecuted for using an XL bully as a fighting dog,” the judge said.
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 bullying standard, the lawyer said.
“For many dog owners, a criminal conviction can end their career, leading to the loss of their job and ultimately their home,” Ms McGahey added.
Ned Westaway, from Defra, said it was “rational” to conclude that XL bullies had the characteristics of fighting dogs because of their connection to pit bull terriers.
He said the government’s XL standard on bullying had been “carefully and thoughtfully considered” and was not illegal.
He said an assessment found there was no “particular or disproportionate” impact on certain groups of people, and that there was “no reason to believe that the issue of impact had not been conscientiously taken into account.
In his written arguments, Mr Westaway said ministers were aware the number of XL bullies could be higher than 10,000, adding: “Even though the number is significantly higher than 0.1% of the Kingdom’s dog population -United, XL bully dogs are still believed to be responsible for a disproportionate and concerning number of dog attacks since 2020.”
He said the finding that dog types are “disproportionately responsible for recent dog attack-related deaths” did not depend on population size, arguing that it was not possible to compare them to other types.
Mr Westaway said “evidence of a larger population would have made the decision more likely, not less”.
dailymail us
