Stronge, R (On the Application Of) v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015, police discretion over a seized prohibited dog must be exercised for the lawful purposes for which the dog was seized. It cannot be used primarily to improve the prospects of a particular Crown Court appeal by creating a prospective keeper or facilitating rehoming. A proposed transfer is therefore unlawful where its dominant purpose is to secure a different outcome in destruction proceedings. Even if some discretion to transfer exists, the police may consider their contractual control, accountability and the uncertainty of proposed arrangements. A short-notice decision will not be irrational merely because its reasons are expressed briefly.

The claimant owned Bleu, a prohibited pit bull type dog seized by the police after an immediate destruction order. He had been disqualified from keeping dogs and accepted that he was unlikely to satisfy the fit-and-proper-person requirement at an out-of-time Crown Court appeal.

He sought judicial review of the police refusal to move Bleu from contracted kennels to Dogs Trust kennels. The proposed transfer was intended to enable a suitable person already responsible for Bleu to be presented to the Crown Court, or to facilitate export and rehoming. The central issues were whether the police had power or discretion to make that transfer and whether the refusal was irrational.

1. Claim dismissed. The claim was suitable for judicial review, although the court should be cautious about granting relief because the case concerned operational arrangements and public safety.
2. The purpose for which Bleu was held was central. He had been seized partly to enable enforcement of the destruction order and partly, where necessary, to permit examination concerning type or temperament. The proposed transfer had a different primary purpose: improving the prospects of the Crown Court appeal by enabling a fit and proper person to be presented as keeper, or by facilitating export.
3. A transfer expressly intended to promote a particular Crown Court result, rather than to serve the purposes for which the dog had lawfully been seized, was not a lawful exercise of police discretion. The restrictions in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015, as explained in Webb v the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary and Henderson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, supported that conclusion.
4. Alternatively, if any discretion to transfer existed, the police could consider the degree of control and accountability secured by the contracted kennels and the changing and uncertain Dogs Trust proposals. The decision-maker had been asked to decide the matter at short notice. Her reasons did not require fine textual analysis, and the decision was not irrational.
5. The likely death of a healthy dog with an excellent temperament illustrated the severity of the statutory scheme, but the balance between preserving such dogs and protecting public safety was a matter for Parliament and Government policy.