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.

Henderson v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWHC 666 (Admin)

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.

  

Retirement of the DPP, Alison Saunders

 

Police to tackle groups of youths gathering on streets of London after spate of violence

 

Amber Rudd says the spate in gun and knife violence is not down to police cuts

 

Former A&E doctor jailed

Previous post The Brexit Transition Agreement – What it Means for Criminal Justice Cooperation
Next post FCA proposes guidance on systems and controls for insider dealing