Brown v Chief Constable of Sussex Police [2025] 5 WLUK 128
Executive Summary
The police’s general power of seizure pursuant to section 19 PACE can be used to seize a dog of a prohibited type, as defined at section 1(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
Background
Using the general power of seizure under section 19 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (‘the 1984 Act’), the police seized dogs from the appellant’s home on the basis they were suspected of being of a prohibited type.
The police subsequently applied to the magistrates’ court for destruction orders pursuant to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (‘the 1991 Act’). The magistrates granted the application, but the appellant appealed to the Crown Court.
In the Crown Court, the appellant submitted that the police were unable to utilise section 19 PACE to seize a dog of a prohibited type because sections 1(3)(a) and section 5(1) of the 1991 Act provide a power of seizure of dangerous dogs.
The Crown Court dismissed the appellant’s argument that the seizure was unlawful.
The Appellant appealed the Crown Court decision by way of case stated to the High Court on the basis that:
- The Crown Court had erred in holding that section 1(3) of the 1991 Act did not render seizure of the dogs under section 19 of the 1984 act unlawful.
- The Crown Court had erred in holding that it (and the magistrates’ court) had jurisdiction to make a destruction order in relation to a dog of a prohibited type which had been seized under section 19 of the 1984 Act in a private place.
Law
Section 1(3) of the 1991 Act grants power to the Secretary of State to order that a person may not have any dog bred for fighting in their possession or custody, unless it is in pursuance of the power of seizure given in section 5(2). Section 5(2) of the 1991 Act provides that on issue of a warrant, an officer may enter premises and seize such a dog where there are reasonable grounds for believing an offence under the Act has been committed.
Section 19 of the 1984 Act grants an officer, who is lawfully on any premises, a general power to seize property. To exercise the power, the officer must have reasonable grounds for believing the property is evidence, was obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence, or that seizure is necessary to prevent the property from being concealed, lost, damaged, altered or destroyed.
Appeal
The appeal was brought on the basis that section 1(3) of the 1991 Act contained clear wording which prevented a prohibited dog being seized. The key issue was whether the Crown Court had erred in its decision that section 1(3) of the 1991 Act did not render the seizure of the dogs under section 19 of the 1984 Act unlawful.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal and held the exercise of the general seizure power in section 19 of the 1984 Act to be lawful. It was found section 1(3) of the 1991 Act did not prevent a dog of a prohibited type from being seized under this power. The court stated that where the relevant condition in section 19 was met, the power to seize the relevant item was exercisable.
Further, the court considered the appellant’s argument surrounding the wording of section 1(3) of the 1991 Act and found much clearer wording would be required to uphold the Appellant’s interpretation.
Comment
This case provides helpful guidance surrounding the exercise of the general power of seizure under section 19 of the PACE Act 1984. It makes clear that, if police are on premises and identify a dog they believe to be of a prohibited type, it can be seized. The alternative (to leave the dog in situ and later return with a warrant under section 5(2) of the 1991 Act) is illogical.
The court’s decision upholds what must be the intention of the statutory framework – which is to protect the public both from dogs which are deemed dangerous by their breed and, those deemed dangerous due to their behaviour.
This insight is authored by Trainee Solicitor, Molly Fletcher. molly.fletcher@weightmans.com
