The word 'pursuit' in s 29(3)(e) of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) requires spontaneity and urgency such that it would be impractical or unwise to break off to obtain a warrant; the mere formation of an intention to seize a dog is insufficient. However, an authorised person exercising the power to seize a dog under s 29(3)(d) may enter open, unobstructed premises pursuant to an implied licence as recognised in [name withheld] v [name withheld], without needing to rely on s 29(3)(e) or a warrant under s 29(5a). The validity of a warrant that does not comply with the prescribed form 4B in the Dog Regulations 1976 (WA) was left open but flagged as potentially invalid.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 3 later cases that cite this judgment.