This week’s Digest considers a judgment of the Divisional Court on the issue of standing for challenges to destruction orders under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
The issue in this appeal related to s. 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991; namely, whether a person who was not an owner or had a direct interest a dog who was the subject of an order for destruction had standing to challenge that order. The answer was that they did not. Only a person who was the owner of the dog or was in such a relation to it such that the dog’s death would result in an interference with their Article 8 ECHR rights had standing.
This was an appeal by way of case stated relating to an application by the respondent Commissioner pursuant s. 4B(1)(a) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (“the 1991 Act”) for the destruction of a dog named Olive, who, on seizure, appeared to be a pit bull terrier and thus prohibited under s. 1(3) of the 1991 Act. Nevertheless, s. 4B of the 1991 Act empowers the court to make a contingent destruction order if it is satisfied that the dog would not constitute a danger to the public. When considering whether a dog constitutes such a danger the court must consider, pursuant to s. 4B(2A), (i) the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour, and (ii) whether the owner of the dog, or the person for the time in charge of it, is a fit and proper person to be in charge of the dog. The court may have regard to such other circumstances as it thinks relevant.
The issue at the heart of this matter was that the appellant, who sought to resist the respondent’s application for destruction of Olive, was not her owner or someone with any direct interest in the dog, rather she was somebody who had a broad interest in the rehousing and rehabilitation of dogs. There was, therefore, an issue as to standing. The appellant sought to persuade the court that a legitimate interest in the dog’s welfare was sufficient in these circumstances to permit an individual to intervene on an application under s. 4B of the 1991 Act. This was rejected, only the owner of a dog or a person with a relationship to the dog such that its destruction would be an interference with his or her right to family or private life under Article 8 of the ECHR had standing to challenge such an order.
However, this did not prevent an individual who has never owned, possessed or met the dog, but who intended to be in charge of it, being relevant to the assessment of risk posed by the dog to public safety. The court’s decision in Webb v. Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset [2017] EWHC 3311 (Admin) intimates that the availability and willingness of a lady like Mrs Henderson to provide shelter for the dog might be a material consideration.
The DPP, Alison Saunders, announced that she would not be extended her five-year term. The search for her replacement has begun.
The full piece can be read here.
In the wake of a spate of violent attacks last week, an officer on the front line of London’s knife-crime policing has vowed to stop youths congregating in hotspots and causing trouble. This comes at a time when police are being encouraged to be more diligent in exercising their powers of stop and search.
The full piece can be read here.
Amber Rudd, writing in the Sunday Telegraph, has denied that a rise in violent crime is due to cuts in front line policing.
The full piece can be read here.
A former A&E consultant who was caught with a stash of weapons – including three sub machine guns – and a hit list of colleagues has been jailed for 12 years.
The full piece can be read here.
