Detailed Provisions Part 3: Further provision relating to offences Section 23: Seizure orders where disqualification breached
184.Section 23(1) allows the court to order that a dog kept in breach of a disqualification order is seized on the application of a constable or prosecutor, even if proceedings have not been brought for an offence under section 22(10).
185.Subsection (3) provides that a seizure order is an order which deprives a person of possession or ownership of a dog and orders the destruction, sale or other disposal of the dog.
186.Under subsection (4) the destruction of a dog may only be ordered if the court is satisfied on evidence by a veterinary surgeon that it would be in the interests of the dog. For example, this might be the case where the dog was in a very poor state of health. A veterinary surgeon does not necessarily require to attend the court in person but can provide evidence via alternative methods (such as video link, teleconferencing or in writing).
187.The court must also consider the need to ensure the welfare of the dog before making a seizure order other than one involving destruction. This recognises that a dog which has been owned or kept in breach of a disqualification order may not itself have been poorly treated and that a seizure order may negatively affect its welfare. However, it is still open to the court to decide that other factors outweigh the welfare of the dog and mean that a seizure order should be made.
188.Subsections (5) and (6) make further provision as to what can be included in a seizure order. This includes provision for appointing someone to carry out the seizure order, requiring delivery of relevant dogs, conferring powers of entry on the person appointed to carry out the order and such other provision as the court considers appropriate, including reimbursement of expenses incurred in carrying out the order or for the care of the dog if it was seized by a constable under the powers included in the schedule.
189.Subsection (7) gives the owner of the dog the opportunity to make representations, unless this is not practicable. The owner of the dog may not be the person who has breached the disqualification order and this provision will allow the owner to put forward any arguments as to why a seizure order should not be made.
190.Subsection (8) requires the court to consider the desirability of protecting the value of any dog to which the order applies, and avoiding increasing expenses which a person may be required to reimburse.
191.Subsection (9) provides for the making of an interim order pending the final determination of a seizure order. The court may make an interim order in relation to the keeping of a dog before the application for a seizure order is determined and which has effect until such time as the application and any appeal is determined. Subsection (10) provides that subsections (5), (6)(a) and (8), which relate to seizure orders, also apply to interim orders.