Dogs seized by the police and where they are boarded/kenneled

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.22.025340

I note you seek access to the following information:

When a dog is seized by the Police in West London area for whatever reason where are they boarded/kennelled, who by and how does one get information on the welfare of the seized dog.

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 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 38 (1)(a)(b) – Health & Safety

Reason for decision

Disclosure of the location of our kennelling provision for seized dogs is kept confidential for reasons of safety and security.
Section 31 of the Act which relates to law enforcement, and Section 38, which relates to health and safety, have therefore been applied to refuse disclosure in this case.

In considering whether or not the requested information should be released, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused to law enforcement and health and safety.

Disclosing the location of our kennelling provision would provide sufficient information for individuals with malicious intent to target the kennels. For example; owners could arrive at the kennels to demand the return of their dog(s), or could attempt to break into the premises in order to secure the return of their animal, before any court proceedings could be taken which would prejudice law enforcement. Any such activity, in turn, would endanger the safety of staff and other individuals using the premises, and the public at large if dangerous dogs were released back into the community as a result of any such action.

Our kennelling provision for seized dogs is kept confidential for reasons of safety and security; this is to ensure the safety and security of the staff and kennels, but also to ensure that seized animals are cared for in a secure, safe environment.

As detailed within the 'harm', the information you are seeking would be a valuable asset to individuals and/or organisations wishing to target our kennelling provision. Disclosure would place the MPS at a tactical disadvantage as if a location was made public, and targeted, officers would need to be deployed to respond to security issues, and any animals held at that site would need to be moved to alternative kennels causing unnecessary stress to animals, and extra expense to the public purse.

It cannot be in the public interest to disclose information which would undermine our ability to protect the public and bring offenders to justice, or which could result in additional expenditure in both resources, transportation and kennelling.

Due to the potential harm that could be caused to our operational effectiveness as outlined above; to ensure the safety of staff, and individuals attending kennels, and the public at large; and to ensure that animals are cared for in a safe and secure environment.

I consider that the benefit that would result from the information being disclosed does not outweigh the considerations favouring non-disclosure. This decision is based on the understanding that the public interest is not what interests the public, but what would be of greater good to the community as a whole

Disclosure

Regarding your second question, where you ask:

Who by and how does one get information on the welfare of the seized dog?

Please be advised that the best route to obtain information in relation to the welfare of a seized dog is through the officer in the case (if seizure was as a result of a criminal investigation (Dangerous Dog, Animal Welfare etc.).