XL Bully owners taking government to court over 'irrational' dog ban

Campaigners have been granted permission to take their fight against the XL bully dog ban to the High Court.

The legal challenge, spearheaded by 40-year-old XL bully owner Sophie Coulthard and the campaign group Don't Ban Me, Licence Me (DBMLM), targets the Department for Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra) following the breed's addition to the prohibited list under the Dangerous Dogs Act in October last year.

Since February, owning an XL bully without an exemption certificate has been a criminal offence in England and Wales, leading to potential fines and prosecution for pet owners, with unregistered dogs at risk of being seized.

Read more: 'My son was out cold, covered in blood... someone thought he was dead'

The Government's decision to outlaw XL bullies came after multiple incidents involving attacks on individuals. However, campaigners are contesting the ban, deeming it unlawful and illogical. They argue that the decision was made on the basis of "unreliable" evidence, lacked comprehensive impact analysis, and set "vague" criteria that could inadvertently lead to criminal offences.

Despite these claims, government attorneys have called for the dismissal of the legal action, labelling the campaigners' arguments as "meritless". During a hearing in London on Wednesday, Mrs Justice Dias acknowledged that there were "arguable" grounds in some aspects of the case, thus allowing the challenge to advance to a full trial at a future date.

Cathryn McGahey KC, representing campaigners, stated that the ban was a result of a "hasty" announcement by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in September last year, following a fatal dog attack, which led to legal errors.

In her written arguments, she claimed that Defra has "no material on which to base a rational decision that dogs involved in recent attacks were disproportionately of XL bully type".

She highlighted that the government estimated there were 10,000 XL bullies in the UK, but 57,301 have been registered. Ms McGahey pointed out that there was no analysis of the numbers of other dog types involved in fatal attacks, adding: "If five XL bullies have been involved in fatal attacks out of a population of 50,000, and one German shepherd dog out of a population of 10,000, then XL bullies are no more dangerous than German shepherds."

She argued: "Before seeking to impose a ban, the defendant should have conducted proper research into the types of dogs in fact involved in serious attacks."

The barrister told the court that restrictions on owners, such as keeping dogs on a lead and muzzled in public, would not prevent attacks as the "vast majority" occurred in homes or on private property. Ms McGahey alleged that the Government had not done any work to determine whether "those with mental health conditions would be particularly adversely affected, or whether children with autism or other medical conditions who relied on their dogs would suffer a detriment".

She argued that while XL bullies are not recognised as a breed by the UK Kennel Club, they are acknowledged in the US. She added that the Government was mistaken to categorise them as dogs bred for fighting. "No-one ever appears to have been prosecuted for using an XL bully as a fighting dog," the court heard.

The barrister stated it was "impossible" for owners to determine if their dog was a banned type due to the "unlawful vagueness" of the Government's XL bully standard. "For many dog owners, a criminal conviction may be career-ending, leading to the loss of employment and ultimately their home," Ms McGahey warned.

Ned Westaway, representing Defra, argued it had been "rational" to conclude that XL bullies had the characteristics of fighting dogs due to their link to pitbull terriers. He defended the Government's XL bully standard, stating it had been "carefully and sensibly thought about" and was not unlawful.

He mentioned an assessment found there was no "particular or disproportionate" impact on certain groups of people, with there being "no reason to think the issue of impact was not conscientiously considered".

In written submissions, Mr Westaway noted ministers were aware the number of XL bullies could exceed 10,000, adding: "Even if the number is substantially greater than 0.1 per cent of the UK dog population, XL bully type dogs would still have been responsible for a disproportionate, and concerning, number of dog attacks since 2020".

He argued that the conclusion of a dog type being "disproportionately responsible for recent dog attack fatalities" doesn't rely on population size, as it's not practical to compare with other types. Mr Westaway noted, "evidence of a larger population would have made the decision more, not less, likely."

Ms Coulthard, a Wandsworth-based director of DBMLM and owner of Billy, an XL bully, confessed her "elation" over the judge's verdict, which she felt was a "feels like a victory for responsible dog owners".

She expressed that while the group who crowdfunded its legal contest understood the need for action against dangerous dogs and rising attacks, they believed "alternative solutions" might have been contemplated.

"We know how passionately people feel that this legislation is unfair, unjust," she voiced, adding: "The decision to ban the XL bully was made so quickly, and the fallout and impact on people's lives, we don't believe, has been considered."