Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Ruling 'fails to clarify pit bull law'

John Arlidge
Friday 02 July 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

CONFUSION surrounding the operation of the Dangerous Dogs Act intensified yesterday after a High Court ruling designed to clarify the meaning of the Act left it 'more obscure than ever', solicitors said.

Arguments over whether dogs had the 'characteristics' of a pit bull terrier would continue, they said. Parliament should intervene to amend the 'poorly worded' legislation.

The Act, passed in 1991, leaves it to the courts to define 'the type of dog known as a pit bull'. Pit bulls are not a recognised breed in Britain. Lord Justice Glidewell dismissed arguments that 'type' meant 'breed', under a widely used US definition. A 'broad and practical' approach had to be adopted taking into account the dog's physical appearance and its behaviour. He said he hoped the ruling would 'clarify' the law.

But Bridget Irving, solicitor for three men charged with having an unregistered dog of 'the pit bull type', said: 'This ruling means that any sort of dog - even a poodle - which showed some pit bull-like characteristics could be covered by the Act.'

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in