23Seizure orders where disqualification breached
(1)Where the court is satisfied that a person who is subject to a disqualification order owns or keeps a dog in breach of the order, the court may make an order (in this Part referred to as a “seizure order”) in respect of any dog which the person owns or keeps in breach of the disqualification order.
(2)A seizure order may be made—
(a)on summary application by a constable or prosecutor,
(b)even if proceedings have not been, or are not likely to be, taken against the person for an offence under section 22(10).
(3)A seizure order is an order—
(a)depriving a person of possession or ownership (or both) of a dog, and
(b)for—
(i)the destruction,
(ii)the sale, or
(iii)another disposal,
of the dog.
(4)The court may not make—
(a)a seizure order which involves the destruction of a dog unless it is satisfied, on evidence provided (orally or in writing) by a veterinary surgeon, that destruction would be in the interests of the dog,
(b)any other seizure order unless it has considered the need to ensure the welfare of the dog.
(5)A seizure order may include—
(a)provision—
(i)appointing a person who is to secure that the order is carried out,
(ii)requiring any person possessing a dog to which the order applies to give it up to a person appointed under sub-paragraph (i),
(b)provision authorising—
(i)a person appointed under paragraph (a)(i), and
(ii)any person acting on that person’s behalf,
to enter any premises where a dog to which the order applies is kept, for the purposes of securing that the order is carried out,
(c)such other provision as the court considers appropriate in connection with the order.
(6)Provision under subsection (5)(c) may in particular—
(a)require reimbursement of—
(i)any expenses reasonably incurred in carrying out the order,
(ii)if the dog was seized by a constable under paragraph 4(b) or 5(2)(b) of the schedule, any expenses reasonably incurred in relation to it since it was seized,
(b)relate to the retention of the proceeds of any sale.
(7)Before making a seizure order, the court must give the owner of the dog concerned an opportunity to make representations unless it is not practicable for the court to do so.
(8)In determining whether or how to make a seizure order, the court must have regard to the desirability of—
(a)protecting the value of any dog to which the order applies, and
(b)avoiding increasing any expenses which a person may be required to reimburse.
(9)When an application is made under subsection (2)(a), the court may make an order under this subsection (an “interim order”) containing such provision as the court considers appropriate in relation to the keeping of a dog until the application is finally determined.
(10)Subsections (5), (6)(a) and (8) apply in relation to an interim order as they apply in relation to a seizure order.