Dangerous dogs 218/2025
FOI Reference: 218/2025
Request
The NPCC has revealed that between 'February and September 2024, policing has seized over 4,586 suspected S1 dogs throughout England and Wales.':
https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/police-seize-more-than-4500-xl-bully-dogs-since-ban
1. Please provide the number of S1 dogs you seized between February and September 2024.
2. Please provide the number of dogs you kennelled in each month between February 2024 to September 2024.
The NPCC has also revealed that it can cost up to £1,000 per month to kennel a dog.
3. Please provide the total amount you spent kennelling dogs in each month between February 2024 and September 2024.
4. Please provide the total amounts you spent on (i) food and (ii) care in respect of kennelled dogs in each month between February 2024 and September 2024.
5. Please provide the names of all businesses/organisations you used to kennel dogs between February 2024 and September 2024.
Response Q1
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
Feb to Sept 2024: 37
Response Q2
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
February – 7
March – 11
April – 11
May – 5
June – 2
July – 5
August – 4
September – 3
Response Q3
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
|
Month |
Kennelling |
|
Feb |
9,745.73 |
|
March |
11,980.00 |
|
April |
12,360.00 |
|
May |
11,190.00 |
|
June |
10,700.00 |
|
July |
13,900.00 |
|
August |
9,140.00 |
|
September |
7,950.00 |
|
Grand Total |
86,965.73 |
Response Q4
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, as outlined below.
|
Month |
Care & food combined |
|
Feb |
44.95 |
|
March |
1,521.91 |
|
April |
2,031.24 |
|
May |
1,698.38 |
|
June |
954.12 |
|
July |
98.06 |
|
August |
1,271.36 |
|
September |
- |
|
Grand Total |
7,620.02 |
Please note: The above food and care costs are combined, as we receive invoices from the kennels with one cost that covers everything.
Response Q5
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities.
Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at Section 1(1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified if a request is held. The second duty at Section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held. Where exemptions are relied upon, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information
Act requires that I provide the applicant with a notice which: a) states that fact b) specifies the exemption(s) in question and c) state (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption
applies.
Where exemptions are relied upon Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Dyfed Powys Police, when refusing to provide such information (because the information is exempt) to provide you the applicant with a notice which:
(a) states that fact,
(b) specifies the exemption in question and
(c) states (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption applies.
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 38(1)(a)(b) – Health and Safety
The Section 31 and 38 exemptions are prejudice-based qualified exemptions. There is therefore a requirement to carry out a HARM Test in respect of such information and there is a requirement to carry out a Public Interest Test in order to establish whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption may be outweighed by a wider public benefit in disclosure.
Section 31 and 38 Evidence of harm:
Under the Act, we cannot, and do not request the motives of any application for information. We have no doubt that the vast majority of requests made under the Act are legitimate and the applicants do not have any ulterior motives. However, in disclosing information to one applicant, we are expressing a willingness to provide it to anyone in the world. This means that a disclosure to a genuinely interested and concerned person automatically opens it up for a similar disclosure, including those who would use the information to gain an advantage over our ability to exercise our core function which is Law Enforcement.
In considering whether or not this information should be disclosed, consideration has been given to the potential harm that could be caused by disclosure. The disclosure of Kennelling providers 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 though potentially being subjected to threats, verbal and physical abuse, endangering their safety, the safety of the animals in their care by causing distress to the animals and the public at large if dangerous dogs were released back into the community as a result of any such action.
Disclosure would also effect law enforcement tactics as should the kennelling providers be made public and be targeted as outlined above officers would need to be re-deployed to respond to the security issues which in turn would potentially cause law enforcement tactics to be disrupted and/or weakened in other areas of policing. Additionally, 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.
Public interest test:
Factors favouring disclosure:
If this information was placed into the public domain, it could provide further transparency to the community regarding the welfare of the animals placed within their care and provides transparency regarding the use of public funds.
Reasons against disclosure:
The release of this information could potentially endanger the physical safety the staff who work at the Kennels, by subjecting them to threats, verbal and physical abuse and destruction to the kennels themselves. Disclosure would also effect law enforcement tactics as should the kennelling providers be made public and be targeted as outlined above officers would need to be re-deployed to respond to the security issues which in turn would potentially cause law enforcement tactics to be disrupted or weakened in other areas of policing.
Balance Test
After considering the advantages and disadvantages in disclosure it falls upon Dyfed-Powys Police to conduct a balance test on the issues. The strongest argument for release, which is better awareness for the public and how funds are spent they need to be weighed against the strongest argument for non-release which in this case is effective law enforcement and protecting the health and safety of members of the public. Whilst there is a public interest in better awareness of how public funds are spent there is a very strong public interest in the health and safety of members of the public and law enforcement. Therefore, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
It should be noted that as a result of the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such information that the information released may or may not be accurate
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 19/03/2025)
|
Os oes angen y wybodaeth yma arnoch yn Gymraeg, cysylltwch â: If you require this information in Welsh, please contact: |