Quickly exit this site by pressing the Escape key Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 613-2023
I write in connection with your request for information which was received on 20th June 2023 as follows:
Q1. How does the police force deal with dogs that are seized? (dogs which are not banned under section 1 of the dangerous dogs act, 1991, but have been seized for acting dangerously out of control)
Q2. What criteria do you use to categorise a dangerous dog under section 3 of the Dangerous Dog Act?
Q3. 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)
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?
Q5. Who are the contracted kenneling providers for this police force?
Q6. What is the maximum dog capacity the force has for seized dogs in The Dog Unit?
Please find the Warwickshire Police response set out below.
Q1 response: Dogs that are seized are taken to secure kennels. From there they could go home without a Control Order, go home with a Control Order, be rehomed or euthanised.
Q2 response: Section 10(3) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which states:
For the purposes of this Act a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so, but references to a dog injuring a person or assistance dog or there being grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will do so do not include references to any case in which the dog is being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or a person in the service of the Crown.
Q3 response: Due to system changes, it is no longer possible to access information that was centrally recorded in relation to seizures and destructions of dangerous dogs, which was previously held for the years 2019 to 2022. Instead, in order to determine the breed types and rationale for dogs destroyed in this time period, it would now be necessary to individually review each and every crime of 08/21 – Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control injuring any person or assistance dog, which would exceed the cost threshold (£450), which equates to 18 hours work at a standard rate of £25 per hour, as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004..
However, I can advise that figures for destructions of dangerous dogs for years 2019 to 2022, which have previously been issued for FOI requests using information that was accessible at the time, is held, and is provided below along with figures for 2023.
Please be advised that the 2019 figure is from 01/01/2019 to 31/12/2019. Due to a change in systems, it is not possible to re-work this for the period 01/05/2019 to 31/12/2019. The 2023 figure is from 01/01/2023 to 31/05/2023.
Dangerous Dogs |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
2023 |
Total |
Destroyed* |
7 |
8 |
8 |
14 |
8 |
37 |
* No dogs were euthanised at scene
Q4 response: Due to system changes, it is no longer possible to access information that was centrally recorded in relation to seizures and destructions of dangerous dogs, which was previously held for the years 2019 to 2022. Instead, in order to determine the breed types and rationale for dogs seized in this time period, it would be necessary to individually review each and every crime of 08/21 – Owner or person in charge allowing dog to be dangerously out of control injuring any person or assistance dog, which would exceed the cost threshold (£450), which equates to 18 hours work at a standard rate of £25 per hour, as stated in the Freedom of Information (Fees and Appropriate Limit) Regulations 2004.
However, I can advise that figures for seizures of dangerous dogs for years 2019 to 2022, which have previously been issued for FOI requests using information that was accessible at the time, is held, and is provided below. Unfortunately, no breakdown by breed is available for these years to determine whether any of the dogs seized were banned breed types.
Dangerous Dogs |
2019* |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
Total |
Seized |
20 |
25 |
29 |
55 |
129 |
* The 2019 figure is from 01/01/2019 to 31/12/2019, and due to a change in systems, it is not possible to re-work this for the period 01/05/2019 to 31/12/2019.
Please also see the 2023 figures:
Dangerous Dogs |
2023* |
Seized** |
22 |
*up to 31/05/2023
**2 dogs were considered to be banned breeds.
Q5 response: 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.
When refusing to provide such information, because the information is exempt, Section 17 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 requires Warwickshire Police to provide you, the applicant, with a notice which:
(a) States that fact
(b) Specifies the exemption(s) in question and
(c) States (if that would not otherwise be apparent) why the exemption(s) applies.
I can confirm that the requested information is held, however, the information is exempt from disclosure by virtue of the following exemption:
Section 31(1)(a)(b) – Law Enforcement
Section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides an exemption from disclosure if the release of information would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, or the administration of justice. It is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and as such, there is a requirement to evidence the harm disclosure would cause and to carry out a public interest test.
Harm
Requests under the Freedom of Information Act are ‘applicant blind’, which means that the motives of anyone requesting information are not questioned. Therefore, in providing a response to one person, we are expressing a willingness to provide the same response to everyone.
Disclosure of the requested information could be of value to a person or persons with criminal or malicious intent, and, along with other information already in the public domain, could equip such individuals with intelligence regarding location of seized dogs. Those who actively seek to disrupt police activity involving the seizure of dogs, could map resources, thereby targeting specific areas for criminal activity, as well as enabling such individuals to adapt and counteract law enforcement efforts. This in turn could compromise the effectiveness and success of ongoing or future law enforcement operations, hinder the prevention and detection of crime and place the community at increased unnecessary risk of harm.
Section 31 - Factors Favouring Disclosure
The principle of transparency and accountability supports the disclosure of information to ensure public scrutiny and oversight of law enforcement activities, as it can enhance public understanding and trust in police operations.
In certain circumstances, there may be a legitimate public interest in knowing how public funds are allocated and utilised. Disclosure can facilitate public debate and scrutiny regarding the expenditure of taxpayer money, and the effectiveness of law enforcement strategies.
Section 31 - Factors Against Disclosure
Disclosing the requested information could provide valuable intelligence to those intent on committing crime, by revealing resources used by the force, and leaving such resources vulnerable to being targeted. This in turn could undermine their operational effectiveness and impede the force’s ability to carry out its core duty to ensure that the prevention and detection of crime, apprehension or prosecution of offenders, and administration of justice is carried out appropriately and effectively.
Balance Test
The balancing act between transparency and accountability on one hand and the protection of operational effectiveness, law enforcement, and public safety on the other hand, must be carefully assessed. Each case should be evaluated based on its specific circumstances and the potential impact of disclosure or non-disclosure.
The value of accountability and the legitimate interest in the public being satisfied in how the force utilise public funds is recognised. However, it is not in the public interest to disclose information around law enforcement tactics and operational capability if that information could be of intelligence value to those intent on committing crime or leave resources vulnerable to being targeted by criminal organisations. The ability to deliver effective law enforcement is of paramount importance, and Warwickshire Police will not divulge information if to do so would have an adverse effect on the force’s ability to prevent and detect crime. In this case, to disclose the details would not only affect the force’s ability to do so, but would also impact upon its core responsibility of protecting the community it serves and its officers.
Therefore, on balance, it is considered that the public interest in providing the information is outweighed by the potential impact release would have on current and future law enforcement activities, and this represents a refusal notice for this part of the request.
Q6 response: No information held. There is no limit on kennel space.
Every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided is as accurate as possible.
Your attention is drawn to the below which details your right of complaint.
Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please write or email the Freedom of Information Unit quoting the reference number above.
Yours sincerely
Freedom of Information Officer
Freedom of Information Unit
Warwickshire Police
PO Box 4
Leek Wootton
Warwickshire
CV35 7QB