Government began implementing a controversial dog ?stop list? more than a month before the ban was scheduled to take effect but did not inform the public, a Supreme Court judge heard yesterday.

A disgruntled would-be dog owner is challenging Government?s dangerous dog ban in court after he was prevented from bringing two Cane Corso dogs into Bermuda although he applied before the ban became policy.

Ferry engine driver Demian Tucker?s application to import the dogs was rejected by the Department of Environmental Protection last June ? less than a month before Government announced the dog stop list.

His lawyer Kamal Durrant argued yesterday the ban is out of step with existing law, and on the basis that it infringed on his client?s right to ?legitimate expectation?.

Mr. Durrant said the 1975 Care and Protection of Animals Act, under which the new policy falls, does not include discrimination on the basis of breed as specific legislation.

But Government lawyer Leighton Rochester said the law allowed the Environment Minister case by case discretion over whether certain breeds of animal should be allowed onto the Island.

?The minister was only carrying out the law in light of developments in the community (and) a heightened public interest in these dogs,? said Mr. Rochester of then Minister Dennis Lister?s decision.

Mr. Rocherster said the Cane Corso, which can grow to more than 100 pounds in weight, was a ?potentially lethal weapon? in the hands of the wrong person.

And he said Mr. Tucker was told about the new policy when he applied for his importation permit.

Speaking as a witness yesterday, Government Veterinarian Jonathan Nesbitt told the court the dog ban became policy and was implemented long before the public was notified about it.

Dr. Nisbett said two other applications for the importation of large dogs were also turned down in June.

But, the public at large knew nothing of the general ban on certain breeds, which include Pit Bulls, Staffordshire Terriers, Akitas and Australian Dingoes, until Government released a statement on July 18, which said the policy would take effect from July 21.

Supreme Court Justice Ian Kawaley asked Dr. Nesbitt why the policy was already being followed and referred to before that time.

?I am not qualified to answer that,? Dr. Nesbitt replied.

?Is it fair for things to be done in this rather ad hoc fashion?? asked Mr. Justice Kawaley, adding: ?The wider that a minister?s discretionary power is, the greater the level of scrutiny that must be given to the fairness of the procedures adopted by him.?

He continued: ?Is it enough for someone to just have a quiet chat within the ministry and then implement a new policy??

Mr. Justice Kawaley is now considering a judgment on the case.