Lord Justice Kennedy and Mr Justice Crane ruled that there had been undue delay and that appropriate appeal procedures had not been followed in a case that involved the owner’s failure to muzzle her pet as required by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. No grounds had been shown for interfering with the order that the dog be destroyed, they said.

Faye Ashman, Tyson’s owner, from Hammersmith, West London, reacted angrily.Before being ushered from court by friends, she told the judges: “You have condemned my dog to death — my innocent dog. You let paedophiles go free, but not my innocent dog.”

The RSPCA said that Tyson was the victim of unnecessary euthanasia and urged the courts to judge dogs on deed, not breed.

Ms Ashman believes that destruction was wrongly imposed to punish her for offences that she — not the dog — had committed in 2003. She was fined £75 at West London Magistrates’ Court in June 2004 after pleading guilty to three charges of having Tyson in a public place without a muzzle, contrary to the Act, which allows magistrates to render a destruction order if an owner commits an offence.

A 1997 amendment, enacted after a public outcry, also allows magistrates to avoid passing a death sentence if they are satisfied that a dog would not constitute a danger to public safety. Yesterday the High Court was told that the magistrates initially did not wish to order Tyson’s destruction because he had done nothing wrong.

In an attempt to save Tyson, who had been neutered and microchipped to comply with the law, the magistrates ordered a transfer of ownership to another person. But Tyson had been seized by the police. When the new owner tried to collect him, the police refused on the basis that the magistrates had no power to transfer ownership under the Dangerous Dogs Act, which prohibits making a gift of pitbull-type dogs.

The case went back before the magistrates, who said that they were saddened to order the dog’s destruction.

Ms Ashman appealed to Blackfriars Crown Court last October, backed by the evidence of an animal behaviour specialist that Tyson was friendly. But Judge Walker and two magistrates ruled that, although the dog may not be a danger to people, there had been a breach of the Dangerous Dogs Act and they were not satisfied that Tyson would not constitute a future danger.

Yesterday the High Court judges rejected Ms Ashman’s application for judicial review. There had been too long a delay and, instead of judicial review, she should have appealed “by way of case stated”, by which the Crown Court would have to give written reasons for its decision. Lord Justice Kennedy agreed.

CANINE JUSTICE

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Science News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Ashes bid in chaos as big gamble fails
• Private schools secretly put up for sale
• Council tax debt-chasers on £600 an hour