A High Court judge has put a stay on a new regulation due to come into force on Feburary 1st that would have allowed agents for the Minister for Rural Development to seize or euthanise XL bully dogs in the care of animal welfare organisations.
At the High Court on Friday, Mr Justice John Jordan granted the injunction against the seizure or euthanasia of the breed in a case brought on behalf of six animal welfare charities.
However, the judge refused the application from the charities petitioning the court to order a second injunction on the regulatory ban preventing the dog shelters and relevant bodies from re-homing the dogs during the time-period sought.
The stay imposed by Mr Justice Jordan is until February 27th, when a full hearing is due to take place at the High Court on the broader aspects of the Control of Dogs 2024 regulations relating to the XL Bully breed.
Mr Justice Jordan said he was making the ruling while being conscious of public safety and in the context of dog attacks that have left people with irreparable and even fatal injuries.
The case was put by barristers Ms Sunniva McDonagh SC and Mariana Verdes BL, instructed by solicitors KOD Lyons, against the Minister for Rural and Community Development, Ireland and the Attorney General on behalf of My Lovely Horse Rescue, Clare Animal Welfare, Working Animal Guardians, Dogs Angels Ireland, Wicklow Animal Welfare and the Haven Rescue.
In October, it became illegal to import, breed, rehome or resell XL Bully dogs, which are the largest of the American bully breed.
However, animal shelters and charities with XL Bully dogs already in their facilities were given until Saturday, February 1st, to re-home or export them.
A ban on owning the breed without an exemption certificate also comes into force at the weekend. Local authorities can grant certificates for the dogs only if they are licenced, microchipped and neutered.
An owner found to be in breach of the regulations by keeping an XL Bully after February 1st without an exemption certificate will have committed a criminal offence under the 1986 Control of Dogs Act.
The animal may be seized and euthanised and the owner subject to imprisonment of up to three months or a fine of up to €2,500, or both.
At the High Court on Friday, Ms McDonagh told Mr Justice Jordan that her clients were "extremely concerned" with public safety and that "any suggestion otherwise, to not to protect public safety, is misguided".
Counsel said "we are all horrified by dog attacks" but urged the court to use its "clear authority" to grant the interlocutory injunction.
Ms McDonagh said that her clients feared that in the interim period, if the stay on the new regulations were not granted that "irreparable harm may be suffered" and that the matter before the court was "very urgent".
Counsel said there was concern that there is no review procedure in the regulations for dogs misidentified as XL Bullys and then put down.
"To keep the dogs alive is crucial, that is the great fear my clients have" she said.
Remy Farrell SC said there had been "significant" recent dog attacks but acknowledged the possibility of error in identifying an XL Bully dog.
Mr Farrell said the jurisprudence of the court regarding putting a stay on statutory provisions was usually "very sparingly exercised".
Mr Justice Jordan said there was "something illogical" about the legislation not providing any "review mechanism" on a warden's assessment of the breed of the dog in advance of it being euthanised.
Mr Justice Jordan said he did not see "any real prejudice allowing animals to stay alive until the case is fully determined", adding that in the interim the dogs would be cared for by "responsible people" who were volunteers.
"You cannot bring back a dead dog to life," said the judge.
"A patently wrong decision could result in the death of a dog who should not be euthanised, when a challenge or review would have avoided that," he said.
The judge granted the interlocutory injunction for the plaintiffs but stressed that there were "well motivated and well-intentioned people on both sides of the argument".
