The case of a Teesside man whose dogs have been seized under suspicion of being of a banned breed has shone the spotlight on the law in this area – and few people seem to think it’s fit for purpose.

James Hutcheson’s animals Bane, Blazer and Kilo were taken into police kennels after members of the public reported seeing their photographs on Facebook.

Cleveland Police believes they could be Pit Bull Terriers, one of the four breeds banned under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, along with the Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasiliero and Japanese Tosa.

Official figures show that only four police forces seize more dogs per head of the population than Cleveland. Across the UK, around 5,000 dogs are believed to have been seized since 2013.

Mr Hutcheson, 27, insists his dogs are harmless pets – but he now faces an anxious wait to find out if he will have the dogs returned.

Owners are not normally able to visit their pets once they are taken into police kennels. Police usually consult an expert to get an initial view on whether seized dogs have the characteristics of an illegal breed.

If the expert decides the animals are in the banned category, the owner can choose between consenting to the dog being put down or going to court.

If the matter goes to court, the onus is on the owner to show the dog is not of a banned type and is not a danger to the public. Owners can also receive a maximum fine of £5,000 and up to six months in jail.

However, even dogs within the four breeds can now be returned to their owners if they are not considered by the court to be dangerous. Strict conditions are imposed in such cases, including the wearing of a muzzle in public places at all times.

Legislation was introduced after a series of attacks on children hit the headlines in the 1980s. It gave the authorities powers to put down certain fighting dogs, even if they can’t be shown to have acted aggressively.

The RSPCA recently launched a campaign against the 1991 law, which it describes as a “dog’s dinner”. It says dogs should be judged on their behaviour rather than being destroyed solely on the basis of their breed.

James Pritchard, a personal injury specialist who handles dog bite claims at Macks Solicitors, says research does not support the theory that the four banned types are necessarily more aggressive than other non-banned breeds.

“The Dangerous Dogs Act is a complete mess,” he said. “I just don’t think it’s right to target certain breeds. I agree with the RSPCA that it should be about how the dog actually behaves instead. Any dog can be turned nasty by a nasty owner – I’ve had clients who had been bitten by all kinds of dogs.

“Border collies have an excellent reputation and can make great family pets. Yet they are also notorious for becoming aggressive if people don’t exercise them enough. The onus should be on the owner to ensure their pets are properly trained.”