Information about dangerous dogs & kennels

Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.23.031095

I note you seek access to the following information:

Clarification -
For question three, can I edit this to comply with the cost to say:

How many dogs have been euthanised on scene or at a later date over the last five years?

If possible, would you be able to say how many were banned breeds or not, or would this exceed the request?

Initial FOIA request

1. How does the police force deal with dogs that are seized?

2. What criteria do you use to categorise a dangerous dog under section 3 of the Dangerous Dog Act?

3. How many dogs have been euthanised on scene and at a later date over the last five years, and if they were considered a banned breed or not, and the rationale behind the decision-making (May 2019 - May 2023)

4. How many dogs have been seized over the last five years from May 2019 - May 2023, if they were considered a banned breed or not and the rationale behind the decision-making of seizing the dog?

5. Who are the contracted kennelling providers for this police force?

6. What is the maximum dog capacity the force has for seized dogs in The Dog Unit?

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 43 - Commercial Interest
Section 38 - Health & Safety

Reason for decision

In regards to Q5 - Who are the contracted kennelling providers for this police force?

Section 43 - Commercial Interest - information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).

In this case if the MPS were to release the information you have requested pertaining to who the contracted kennel providers for the MPS are, this could result in the MPS attracting less favourable contracts with companies in the future, if they believe such details would be made public. Furthermore it may impact on the commercial interests of our kennel provider, their property and staff. Information about our provider would be revealed and in so doing our commercial interests would be prejudiced it would adversely affect our ability to source kennel providers in a competitive environment.

In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, I have considered the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure.

• The disclosure of the contracted kennelling providers for the MPS would weaken the position of the MPS in a competitive environment. This would have a harmful effect on future partnerships when entering into commercial activities. This is as companies will feel that the MPS cannot be trusted in relation to sensitive information.

• The premises and staff of the kennel provider would be placed at risk from attack from disgruntled individuals or those intent on causing disruption. The MPS has a duty of care to not only members of public, but also companies they work with (along with their staff).

Section 38 - Health & Safety - In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, we have considered the potential HARM that could be caused by disclosure.

The applicability of Section 38(1) is directly linked to the ability to identify and locate the kennel provider property and their staff, any of whom could become targets. Consideration must be given to any resultant harm to an individual which is likely to be caused following disclosure of information requested under the Act.

“When considering identifiability it should be assumed that you are not looking just at the means reasonably likely to be used by the ordinary man in the street, but also the means that are likely to be used by a determined person with a particular reason to want to identify individuals. Examples would include disgruntled dog owners, animal rights/safety campaigners, investigative journalists etc.

Any harm/risk of harm that any release may result in could be directed against the kennel provider property and their staff. This would cause distress and upset to the individuals concerned and/their family and friends.

Section 38(1) provides an exemption from the disclosure of information which would, or would be likely to, endanger the physical or mental health or safety of any individual. ‘Any individual’ includes any specific individuals, and any member of the public, or groups within society. It includes the kennel provider’s members of staff, or anyone else.

• Disclosing information relevant to this request will expose individuals captured by the scope of question 5 of this request to the risk of, or the fear of, attack or reprisal, physically, or via other means such as social media, which would cause substantial psychological upset and distress. It would therefore place those individuals at significant risk of physical and mental harm.

• It would be unfair to place information into the public domain which would be likely to cause an individual, for example the kennel provider’s members of staff distress, as disclosure could cause unwanted contact from those interested in the kennels. The Police Service has a duty of care to individuals. To divulge any information under the Freedom of Information Act that could place the health and/or safety of any individual in danger, would not be in the public interest.

• Disclosure would also result in a loss of public confidence and trust in the Police Service to protect individuals and members of the community at large, and would discourage the sharing of intelligence with the police. The trust that we have in our working relationships with other parties in order to bring offenders to justice, would be eroded and would foster a less co-operative relationship.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 protects an individual’s physical and mental well-being whether the harm is real or perceived. The MPS consider that releasing the requested information has the potential to lead to reprisal, intimidation, threats of harm, and/or actual injury.

Whilst there is a public interest in financial accountability and transparency, the requirement to safeguard the health and safety of individuals must take precedence. This will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances.

The Police Service will never divulge information, if to do so would place the safety of any individual(s) at risk.

Therefore, at this moment in time, it is our opinion that for these reasons, the balance lies in favour of withholding the requested information.

Disclosure

Q1 - How does the police force deal with dogs that are seized?

The managing unit for all dog seizures is the Status Dog Unit. They will review the circumstances of the seizure, complete research on the dog and owner (fit a proper test). A decision will be made based on the risk the dog poses to the general public and whether the risk can be mitigated if returned to owners. If it cannot then a decision will be made to retain the dog in kennels pending a disposal decision by the court. If the risk can be managed then the dog will be returned on an acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) with conditions, as appropriate, agreed with the owner. To put this in perspective currently 100 dogs are on ABC in the Met Police area.

Animal welfare seizures are slightly different as the risk is towards the animal by the owner/suspect/s. As such decisions are based on whether it is suitable to return on an improvement notice (low level animal welfare offences) or retained in kennels to allow a civil application to deprive from the owner or decision to deprive at conviction by a court if a voluntary disclaimer is refused by the owner.

Q2 - What criteria do you use to categorise a dangerous dog under section 3 of the Dangerous Dog Act?

Dogs are not deemed by the Status Dog Unit as ‘dangerous’ per se more suspected as responsible for offence/s reported under offences within the dangerous dog act 1991.

Temperament assessments are not conducted on seized dogs by the MPS unless requested by the CPS.

Q3 - How many dogs have been euthanised on scene or at a later date over the last five years? (May 2019 - May 2023)

Dogs destroyed at scene are very low in the MPS and average 1 per year.

Figures for dogs put to sleep in general (including voluntary disclaimers by owners which make up at least 50% of numbers) are as follows
• 2019/2020 – 148
• 2020/2021 – 119
• 2021/2022 – 132
• 2022/2023 – 229

Q4 - How many dogs have been seized over the last five years from May 2019 - May 2023, if they were considered a banned breed or not and the rationale behind the decision-making of seizing the dog?

Dog seizures for all offences + include prisoner property and care act
• 2019/2020 – 806
• 2020/2021 – 857
• 2021/2022 – 879
• 2022/2023 – 1159

Dogs seized that are prohibited or suspected prohibited breeds
• 2019/2020 – 54
• 2020/2021 – 41
• 2021/2022 – 27
• 2022/2023 – 23

Q6 - What is the maximum dog capacity the force has for seized dogs in The Dog Unit?

160 in the MPS

DUTY TO ADVISE & ASSIST

Under Section 16 of the Act, there is a duty to advise and assist applicants. In relation to question 3, I believe the below information will be of interest to you:

On 11/07/2023 I advised you that is not a reasonable request to expect a rational behind the decision making of each as it would far more than the reasonable 18 hours. But to assist, dogs are put to sleep for the following reasons:

• They are voluntary disclaimed by the owner – usually as a result of attacking the owner/family member/member of the public and it is not suitable to re-home such a dog by the MPS.
• Court order made to destroy the dog.
• Owner fails to respond to Police to take collection of their dog and the dog is not suitable for re-homing.
• The dog is sick/dies in kennels.