Brown v Chief Constable of Sussex 2025
Police attended at the home address of B as they suspected B possessed a dog, and puppies, of a prohibited type – namely, pit bull terrier types, contrary to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (DDA). The police relied on the general power of seizure under section 19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), to seize B’s dog and the eight puppies from the address.
A magistrates' court held that all the dogs were of a prohibited type. On appeal, the Crown Court agreed with B’s expert that three of the puppies were not of a prohibited type, but rejected her argument that seizure of the dogs under section 19 had been unlawful. Therefore, the court held it had jurisdiction to decide on applications for destruction orders pursuant to section 4B of the DDA.
B appealed by way of case stated against the decision of the Crown Court that the dogs had been lawfully seized and that the court had jurisdiction to hear the applications for destruction orders. The issue was whether the Crown Court had erred in holding that section 1(3) of the DDA, which provided that no person "shall have any dog to which this section applies in his possession or custody except (a) in pursuance of the power of seizure conferred by the subsequent provisions of this Act", did not render the dog’s seizure under section 19 of PACE unlawful. B argued that section 1(3) of the DDA’s wording precluded the seizure of a prohibited dog under section 19 of PACE.
Held
Appeal dismissed.
The court considered that section 1(3) of the DDA is concerned with defining offences whilst, section 19 of PACE is concerned with investigating offences. If the provisions in section 19 of PACE were met, police were empowered to seize a relevant item. No-one would suggest police could not seize firearms: the same applied to dogs. Legislation would need to be worded much more clearly to satisfy B’s interpretation. To allow that interpretation would create anomalous circumstances: whether the police had the power to seize would be determined by whether the dog was prohibited, which was often disputed and could take time to establish. It would also be odd for a police officer to have the power to seize a dog which was not prohibited, but no power to seize a dog which was prohibited.
View the full case document here, with links to related legislation and similar cases.
