Dog Seizure 619/23
FOI Reference: 619/2023
Request:
- How does the police force deal with dogs that are seized?
- What criteria do you use to categorise a dangerous dog under section 3 of the Dangerous Dog Act?
- How many dogs have been euthanized 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)
- 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?
- Who are the contracted kennelling providers for this police force?
- What is the maximum dog capacity the force has for seized dogs in The Dog Unit?
Response 1:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:
- Dogs seized by the force are taken to secure kennels where they are kept until a case has been resolved / been to court, or a disclaimer has been signed to have the dog euthanised.
Response 2:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:
- A dog of any breed to be dangerously out of control in a public or private place. A dog is dangerously out of control if it causes reasonable apprehension of injury, even if no injury occurs.
Response 3:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:
2019 – 0
2020 – 2
2021 – 3
2022 – 12
2023 – 3
1 dog was a banned breed.
If a disclaimer is signed by owner the dog will be euthanised. If the case goes to court – then a decision will be made whether the dog will be euthanised/returned to owner or re homed.
Response 4:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:
2019 – 1
2020 – 5
2021 – 8 – ( 1 banned breed)
2022 – 18
2023 - 10
A dog will be seized if it is seen to be dangerously out of control in a public or private place (Section 3 dangerous dogs act)
Response 5:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, however the information requested have been withheld by virtue of the following exemptions.
Section 31(1) – Law Enforcement
Section 38(1) – Health and Safety
Please see the end of the document for an explanation of the applied exemptions
Response 6:
I can confirm that Dyfed-Powys Police does hold the information requested, the details of which are as follows:
- No seized dogs are kept in Dyfed Powys police’s Dog Unit kennels, any dogs that are seized are taken to the contracted Kennelling provider.
Explanation of the applied exemptions:
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 in 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 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 owing to the systems adopted by Dyfed-Powys Police in relation to the recording of such matters the information provided may or may not be accurate. It should be noted that for these reasons this Force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other response you may receive.
(This is a response under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and disclosed on 26/09/23)