Campaigners lose XL bully ban legal challenge

Campaigners against the ban on XL bully dogs in England and Wales have lost their legal challenge against the legislation.

A High Court judge has concluded there was “sufficient evidence” to justify the concerns, which led to the measures being introduced in the autumn of 2023.

But aspects of its implementation were deemed to be in breach of equality legislation, even though the outcome would not have been significantly different without those failings.

The 42-page ruling published today (17 December) followed a two-day hearing last month on a judicial review application brought by the Don’t Ban Me Licence Me group.

‘Acted unlawfully’

Their lawyers argued that the former Defra secretary, Thérèse Coffey, had acted unlawfully in her decision to impose a ban, as well as through the instruments used to implement it.

But the judge, Mrs Justice Lang, said that approach contained a “fundamental flaw”, as the court could only intervene if it detected an error in law and Parliament had given the secretary of state designation powers under the Dangerous Dogs Act if a type appeared to be “bred for fighting”.

She added that, even allowing for cases of fatal attacks where the involvement of an XL bully was in question, there was “sufficient evidence of an alarmingly high level of fatal attacks by XL bullies or XL bullies crossbreeds to justify the defendant’s concerns”.

Impact assessment

The ruling also rejected the group’s argument that the conformation standard issued had not given legal certainty, concluding it had not exposed any “arguable public law error”.

The court did find that the minister was in breach of her public sector equality duty when orders for designation, rehoming and compensation and exemption were introduced, on the basis of “perfunctory” assessments that were deemed insufficient.

But the judge refused to grant relief on that ground, as a “comprehensive” impact assessment completed earlier this year meant it was “highly likely that the outcome for the claimants would not have been substantially different if the conduct complained of had not occurred”.