Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2012] All ER (D) 183 (May)
Court: Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court

Richards LJ and Collins J (judgment delivered extempore)

Representation Pamela Rose (instructed by Wheldon Law Solicitors, Hemel Hempstead) for the claimant.
  The first defendant was not represented and did not appear.
  Melanie Cumberland (instructed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) for the second defendant.
Judgment Dates: 23 May 2012


Animal - Dog - Dangerous dog - Claimant owning two pit-bull terriers - First defendant Crown Court making contingent destruction order in respect of dogs - Claimant applying for judicial review of decision - Whether in determining whether dogs a danger to public safety the court to consider only characteristics of dog - , , - Dangerous Dogs Compensation and Exemption Schemes Order 1991, .

The Case

Animal Dog. The Divisional Court dismissed the claimant's application for judicial review of the defendant Crown Court's decision to issue a contingent destruction order pursuant to s4A of the .

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.