Fatal dog attacks recorded by the MPS from 2017 to 2021

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.022585

I note you seek access to the following information:

Please can you answer the below questions for the following time periods:
2017 (calendar year),
2018 (calendar year),
2019 (calendar year),
2020 (calendar year) and
2021 (1 Jan to 31 Dec).

1) How many fatal dog attacks did your force record over the requested period?
Please break this information down in terms of the age of the victim and the breed/type of dog.

2) For each of the fatal dog attacks recorded in Q1, can you please tell me what offence- if any- the owner of the dog was charged with (for example, but not limited to: owning/being in charge of a dog dangerously out of control) and/or investigated over? Please tell me the reasons (for example, no suspect ID, case not in the public interest etc)- for the relevant cases- as to why a charge was not pursued following an investigation.

3) Can you please tell me if any of the dogs in Q1 had previously been recorded by your police as being involved in another criminal attack (for example, but not limited to: injuring someone, attacks on livestock, being used in a gang to facilitate drug deals and debt collection etc).

Can you break this information down in terms of the type of attack the dog had previously been in, the date of that attack (MM/YYYY) and the outcome/action taken -if any- of that incident the dog was previously involved in.”

Decision

I have today decided to disclose some of the requested information. Some data has been withheld as it is exempt from disclosure and therefore this response serves as a Refusal Notice under Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) by virtue of the following exemptions:

Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3)(a)(i)(ii)(b) – Personal Information
Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a) – Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities

Reason for decision

Section 40(2)(a)(b)(3(a)(i)(ii)(b) - Personal information - I have made the decision to disclose the number of cases located, as requested at your question 1, however, due to extremely low data I am unable to provide any further information in relation to the located data as additionally requested at your questions 1 and 2, as any further disclosure would be highly likely to identify the deceased, which by default would identify family members of the deceased and release personal information into the public domain.

Section 40(2)(3) of the Act, which exempts personal information from disclosure has therefore been applied, and as the information you are seeking was recorded for the purposes of investigation, Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a) has also been applied as any further disclosure could jeopardise future police operations and compromise investigations.

Section 40(2)(3) is an absolute and class based exemption if to release the information would breach the third party’s data protection rights. In this case to release this personal information would not constitute fair processing of the data. As this exemption is class based I am not required to identify the harm in disclosure and in this instance I believe that the right to privacy outweighs any public interest in release.

Section 3 of the Data Protection Act 2018 confirms that information which relates to an identified or identifiable living individual is Personal Data. The Freedom of Information Act provides an exemption for Personal Data and this is known as the section 40 exemption.

The information you have requested is considered by the MPS to be personal to the family members of the deceased. Where the request is seeking access to third party personal data the section 40(2) exemption may be engaged.

In order to apply the Section 40(2) exemption the disclosure of the requested information must satisfy either the first, second or third conditions as defined by subsections 3(A), 3(B) and 4(A) of the Data Protection Act 2018.

The first condition ensures that the exemption would apply in circumstances where the disclosure of the information would breach any of the Data Protection Act 2018 principles.

There are six Data Protection principles set out in the 2018 act and these can be found at section 34. In this instance I have decided that the disclosure of the Personal Data would be incompatible with the first Data Protection principle which states that the processing (in this case the disclosure) of the data must be both lawful and fair.

With reference to your question 3, please be advised that no information is held relevant to this question as our current system for recording this information was not implemented at the time of the disclosed data.

Section 30(1)(a)(b)(c)(2)(a) - Investigations and proceedings conducted by public authorities - ‘Section 30(1) provides an exemption from the duty to disclose information that a public authority has held at any time for certain investigations or proceedings. As long as the other requirements of the exemption are satisfied, the exemption will apply to information even if it was not originally obtained or generated for one of those purposes and it will continue to protect information even if it is no longer being used for the specified investigation or proceeding. It is only necessary for the information to have been held at some point for those purposes. The exemption applies to information rather than documents so it is possible that information contained in a document created after the conclusion of an investigation or set of proceedings could still attract the exemption…’

I can advise you that in this specific case section 30 has been engaged as the information in question relates to investigations, which the MPS had a duty to conduct.

However, this has to be balanced against the harm that would be caused by how members of the public perceived how the MPS would treat any information which formed part of an investigation.

During the course of a police investigation, enquires are made to secure evidence. These enquires are made for the duration of the case and are based upon proven methods as well as the judgement and experience of the officer(s) in charge of the investigation. The MPS is reliant upon these techniques to conduct its investigations and the public release of such information could prejudice the ability of the MPS to conduct further, similar investigations. It is not in the public interest to disclose any further information that may compromise the MPS's ability to complete future investigations.

Disclosure

Q1 - How many fatal dog attacks did your force record over the requested period (Calendar years 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021)?

One (1) fatal dog attack was recorded by the MPS over the specified five year date range.