The appeal challenged a finding that a dog was a pit bull terrier, unregistered, and to be destroyed. A decision had been made not to prosecute the owner. He now challenged the finding that it was of a type to which the Act applied. The appellant had had opportunity to obtain access for an expert, but would not pay the fees. The dog was found to be a pit bull. The appellant appealed, and the dog was examined before it was admitted that no appeal to the Crown Court lay against an order under s5(4).
Held: The fees charged were too high and the Commissioner had failed to take proper account of the appellant’s means. The meaning of subsection 5(4) and 5(5) are not clear. The absence of aright of appeal made it even more important that the dog and owner be given a fair trial.
Judges:
Lord Justice McCowan and Mr Justice Collins
Citations:
[1996] EWHC Admin 380
Links:
Statutes:
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 5(4) 5(5)
Crime, Animals, Magistrates
Updated: 25 May 2022; Ref: scu.136928