Is the Dangerous Dogs Act Flawed? Calls Grow for Rethink After XL Bully Ban

Increase in Incidents – Despite XL Bully Ban – Prompts Calls for Re-think.

More than three decades after it was first introduced, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 remains one of the UK’s most controversial laws – and with the recent ban on XL Bully dogs, debate about whether it is still fit for purpose has reignited once again.

From fatal attacks to widespread confusion over breed identification, the Act has been labelled by critics as “poorly drafted”, “unenforceable”, and “unfair”.

But supporters insist it continues to play a vital role in protecting the public from serious harm.

A Law Brought About By Panic?

The Dangerous Dogs Act was passed in 1991 following a series of high-profile dog attacks, banning ownership of four breeds — the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.

It was recently amended to include the XL Bully breed in 2024 after a rise in serious incidents, including the widely publicised attack on 11-year-old Ana Paun in Birmingham.

Under the law, owning, breeding, selling, or gifting these dogs is illegal unless an exemption certificate is granted.

Owners of exempt dogs must have them microchipped, insured, and muzzled in public.

But as former Prime Minister Boris Johnson once wrote, the Act “was rushed through Parliament and has gone down as a model of atrocious legislation”, accusing it of focusing on dog types rather than owner behaviour – what he called a “nightmare world of pseudo-scientific dog eugenics”.

The Case Against Breed-Specific Legislation

Johnson was not the only critic.

Animal welfare organisations, including the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and Kennel Club, have long opposed breed-specific legislation (BSL).

They argue that behaviour – not appearance – should determine whether a dog is dangerous, and that the law has become impossible to enforce fairly or consistently.

There are also practical challenges.

Thousands of banned breeds remain in the UK, and many owners simply ignore the restrictions.

During a recent visit to Leeds, an investigation from the BBC witnessed an XL-type dog being walked without a muzzle, its safety gear dangling unused from its collar – and reportedly a common sight, despite clear legal requirements.

Policing and Enforcement Challenges

Chief Constable Mark Hobrough, who leads on dangerous dogs for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, admits that enforcing the XL Bully ban “has presented policing with a number of challenges and put immense pressure on resources”.

Police forces must not only identify banned breeds – often requiring expert assessment – but also seize, kennel, and manage legal processes around dangerous dogs, costing hundreds of thousands of pounds in storage and court delays.

Legal experts also point out that the Act does little to deter illegal breeders or irresponsible owners, who often ignore licensing, training, or socialisation requirements altogether.

Calls for Laws to Target Owners Instead

Many campaigners believe the solution lies not in banning breeds but in holding owners accountable.

Professor Carri Westgarth of the University of Liverpool argues that “simple legislative changes are unlikely to be a quick fix” unless backed by proper funding and education.

“We need better resourcing for enforcement and a shift in focus – from banning breeds to tackling irresponsible ownership,” she says.

Some have proposed reintroducing a national dog licensing system, scrapped in 1987 due to poor compliance.

The Dog Control Coalition supports bringing it back, suggesting the funds could be used to hire dog wardens, educate owners, and monitor high-risk breeds.

However, others warn such a system could prove costly.

The RSPCA’s Samantha Gaines supports the idea “in principle” but warns that if fees are too high, compliance will again be low.

Licensing Breeders and ‘Designer Dogs’

The rise of “designer dogs” such as XL Bullies and cavapoos during the pandemic has been linked to unregulated breeding.

Some experts believe that tighter licensing for breeders would be more effective than targeting dog types.

Currently, breeders need a licence if they produce three or more litters a year, but animal behaviourist Debbie Connolly says that threshold should be lowered.

“Anyone can breed a dog and sell it,” she says. “Until that changes, the problem will continue.”

Could a ‘Highway Code’ for Dog Owners Work?

Former CPS prosecutor David Tucker has proposed a different approach — a single “Highway Code for Dog Owners” that consolidates dog laws into one clear, enforceable framework.

He argues that “dog law in general is an untidy mess”, spread across multiple acts and agencies.

The idea has gained some traction, echoing the findings of a Middlesex University study that called for mandatory “clean ownership records” and dog behaviour courses – similar to speed awareness programmes for drivers – for owners whose pets show aggression.

Supporters say education, rather than punishment, could be the key to preventing attacks and promoting responsible ownership.

A Question of Culture, Not Just Law

Ultimately, critics say the issue goes beyond legislation.

Many of the most serious dog attacks happen in private homes, involving family pets – not banned breeds.

As Connolly points out:

“Any person can get a dog. Any person can breed and sell one. No matter how unsuitable they may be, someone somewhere will sell them one.”

For now, the Dangerous Dogs Act remains in force – but as incidents rise and enforcement struggles to keep pace, the question remains: is the problem with the dogs themselves, or with a law that has failed to evolve with the times?

How We Can Help

For advice on any aspects of legal representation for Dangerous Dogs Act offences– call us now on 0161 477 1121 or email us.