XL Bully campaigners get green light for High Court challenge

XL Bully owners believe the ban introduced in February is unlawful and irrational.

They also claimed it was based on "unreliable" material and lacked a proper analysis of its impacts.

However, Government lawyers have said the campaigner's arguments are "meritless" and that the challenge should be dismissed.

Judge Mrs Justice Dias said during a hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice that the campaigners had an "arguable" case in places.

Cathryn McGahey, KC, representing the campaigners, warned that the ban stemmed from a "hasty" announcement from Prime Minister Rishi Sunak in September last year.

The Prime Minister’s announcement came after a spate of attacks across England and Wales.

• Met Police have a 'soft approach' to Palestine protesters and 'aggressive' with St George's Day marchers
• World War II hero celebrates 102nd birthday in style fulfilling life-long dream
• Hospital violated state law by writing prescriptions for sex change hormones to children

McGahey claimed: "If five XL bullies have been involved in fatal attacks out of a population of 50,000, and one German shepherd dog out of a population of 10,000, then XL bullies are no more dangerous than German shepherds.

"Before seeking to impose a ban, the defendant should have conducted proper research into the types of dogs in fact involved in serious attacks."

However, DEFRA’s Ned Westaway said concluding that XL Bullies had the characteristics of fighting dogs due to their connection to pitbull terriers was "rational".

He added that the Government's ban had been "carefully and sensibly thought about".

Restrictions were imposed on XL Bullies from February 1 following a spate of fatal incidents.

It is now an offence to own one in England and Wales without an exemption certificate or to walk one without a lead and muzzle.

Separate restrictions were introduced across Scotland to bring uniformity to Great Britain.