Update on dangerous dogs

Report: 8
Date: 16 September 2010
By: Assistant Commissioner Central Operations on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This is an update to the report submitted to the Strategic and Operational Policing Committee on 8 June 2009. The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Status Dogs Unit (SDU) has been in existence since 2 March 2009. On 29 March 2010 the MPS reorganised responsibilities in relation to the management of the kennelling contract which now rests with the SDU. Staff posts on the SDU were increased by one police inspector and one member of police staff to reflect this change.

This report gives an outline of the work of the SDU in its first year, the broader situation being faced by the MPS and London regarding dangerous dogs.

A. Recommendation

That Members note the action being taken by the MPS.

B. Supporting information

1. 2009/2010 financial year end figures:

• 1155 dogs seized by the MPS
• Kennelling spend £2.57m (incl. all veterinary, transport and Court costs)
• 2406 spontaneous calls responded to by Dog Support Unit (DSU) officers
• 295 premises entered under warrant by borough and SDU officers where prohibited dogs were believed to be present
• 623 pre-planned operations to deal with dangerous dogs by DSU officers (this includes all other warrants where prohibited dogs or otherwise are on premises and present a danger)
• 423 prosecutions commenced (36% of seizures)
• 224 prohibited dogs returned to owners under the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act (a Court process that permits the return of certain dogs to responsible owners subject to strict conditions)
• SDU and DSU officers policed seventeen festivals such as Notting Hill Carnival, Lovebox, Carnival del Pueblo

2. Figures since 1 April 2010:

• 392 dogs seized since 1 April 2010 (at 31 July 2010)
• Presently 379 dogs in MPS kennels (at 24 August 2010)
• 980 spontaneous calls responded to by Dog Support Unit (DSU) officers (to 31 July 2010)
• 95 premises entered under warrant by borough and SDU officers where prohibited dogs were believed to be present (to 31 July 2010)
• 299 pre-planned operations to deal with dangerous dogs by DSU officers (this includes all other warrants where prohibited dogs or otherwise are on premises and present a danger (to 31 July 2010)
• 174 prosecutions commenced (44% of seizures)

Status Dog Unit

3. All aspects of dealing with MPS seized dogs are now dealt with solely by staff from the SDU. This ranges from assisting with the initial seizure, examination and determination of the type of dog to managing the kennel supplier contract, arranging veterinary work, attending Courts and payment of invoices.

4. Due to the increase in dangerous dog related issues throughout London it has been necessary for the SDU to concentrate its partnership working to the areas where the problems are most significant. Working with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home (BDH) SDU staff aim to encourage stakeholders to take responsibility for local issues and look to develop strategies that promote responsible dog ownership through a variety of means.

That work is being progressed in the following boroughs:

• Lambeth
• Ealing
• Southwark
• Haringey
• Greenwich
• Waltham Forest
• Hackney
• Lewisham
• Tower Hamlets

5. The most effective areas from the SDU perspective are those that have nominated borough police contacts to take on strategic and operational roles to link in with the local authorities. For example Ealing borough police have a nominated Detective Chief Inspector and Detective Sergeant taking the lead. The following is a précis of the dogs seized at Ealing as an example of the type of work being undertaken:

• 2 Pit Bull Type (PBT) dogs swinging from tree, one with 5 pups, being dealt with by officer on serious youth violence team
• 2 PBT found on premises at drugs warrant
• 3 PBT seized in vehicle when driver arrested for possession with intent to supply controlled drugs
• PBT bit 13 year old outside home address
• 3 PBT seized no other issues
• PBT found in young people’s hostel
• PBT in possession of suspect when arrested for serious assault, being dealt with by officer on gangs unit
• 2 PBT seized when warrant executed for unrelated offences
• PBT seized in joint operation regarding animal welfare. Other 6 dogs dealt with by partners

6. In all other London boroughs SDU work amounts to providing advice to colleagues, seizing and examining dogs and providing an expert witness package to officers where appropriate.

7. MPS officers do not routinely patrol London’s streets with a view to seizing prohibited dogs. SDU and DSU officers are deployed on public festival type events where dangerous dogs are of a concern to public safety. It has been noticeable that during the present summer period far fewer people bring their dogs to these events.

Seizure of dogs

8. Dogs are seized by the MPS for a variety of reasons. The most common being that the dog is of a type believed to be prohibited by Law. In such cases dogs are seized and kept at secure kennels whilst the case is investigated and decisions made. Dogs can also be seized, following a risk assessment process, as the result of an investigation into allegations that people have been injured or put in fear of being injured. The MPS also take possession of prohibited dogs from the homing agencies where an owner has been traced and it may be suitable for the dog and owner to be reunited.

Appendix 1 outlines the reasons for dog seizures by London borough, 1 April 2009 - 26 July 2010.

9. The appendix shows that over 80% of those dogs seized by the MPS are prohibited by law. In general terms seized dogs can be categorised into three distinct groups. Approximately a third result in prosecutions, a third are returned to responsible owners through the exemption process (court decision but not a prosecution) and the remaining third account for all others including the majority that are put to sleep, many as the result of court orders.

Reported injuries to Londoners

10. Appendix 2 outlines the details of allegations of injuries made by dogs by boroughs in London, 1 June 2009 - 31 May 2010.

There are 2 dog related criminal allegations that are recorded on the MPS Crime Reporting Information System (CRIS):

• Allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control in a public place and injuring any person
• Allowing a dog to enter a non-public place and injuring any person

11. The statistics indicate that the vast majority of injuries are of a minor nature and are sustained by white - northern European males and females. This dataset gives no indication of anti social behaviour or animal welfare issues related to the ownership or possession of dogs in London. Further it gives no details about the type or breed of dogs involved.

Work done to reduce delays

12. A significant amount of work has been done by SDU officers at all levels to streamline processes with the ultimate aim to reduce the time each dog is kennelled. This has been positive in terms of cost and animal welfare and has included:

• Joint working on the HMCS document - ‘An introduction to the case management of dangerous dog case’ published by the Justices’ Clerks’ Society to all Courts
• Initial contact made with London Criminal Justice Board (LCJB) and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to develop working practices further
• Producing a corporate customer package for use by all MPS kennel contractors
• SDU officers have built up good working relationships with a number of London Courts
• Completed internal MPS report on the costs incurred by the MPS kennelling dogs while awaiting Court processes. Suggested improvements to speed up cases include dedicated CPS prosecutors, specialist Courts, police making charging decisions etc
• Completed internal MPS policy on how to deal with all dogs, which awaits publication
• Most importantly SDU officers have been heavily involved in working with partners in drafting changes to legislation that would increase police powers, allow for pre-emptive police action where required, negate the need to seize some dogs, speed up processes, reduce kennelling costs and be positive in terms of animal welfare
• SDU officers responded to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) consultation of dangerous dogs on behalf of the MPS

Work done to reduce numbers of dogs kennelled by the MPS

13. Through a program of team meetings the SDU has developed a more effective working method to ensure that all live cases are reviewed at regular intervals to ensure proper management of cases and ultimately cost effectiveness. As a result enquiries are commenced to chase up officers in cases and numerous letters have been sent to Courts and CPS representatives to highlight delays, costs and the welfare aspects of cases where dogs are kennelled for lengthy periods. This has had a positive impact in a number of cases where dogs have been kennelled for lengthy periods.

14. Other MPS DSU dog handlers, who are at the time unable to work their police dog and who are Dog Legislation Officers (DLO’s), are seconded to the unit.

15. The average length of stay for all dogs going out of kennels for the financial year 2009 - 2010 was 111 days. That number has increased to 120 days for all dogs leaving kennels since the start of the present financial year. It is too early to predict what the year end average will be as a number of factors influence this. For example sixteen dogs left kennels in April and May 2010 that had been kennelled for an average of 566 days each. These dogs had been seized prior to the creation of the SDU. A further example is one single case where fourteen dogs remain kennelled for 545 days so far pending appeals. In addition there are further twenty one dogs that have been kennelled for over one year awaiting resolution through court proceedings.

16. The SDU or DSU will always respond to support MPS officers who require assistance and advice with this work. There are a number of factors that directly affect the volume of work and seizures that the MPS undertakes. These include:

• High profile incidents including deaths and serious injuries
• Safer Neighbourhood Team (SNT) officers responding to complaints
• Increased knowledge of the SDU throughout the MPS
• Increased number of dog bites reported by other agencies
• Media attention
• Political interest

Partnership working

17. SDU staff work with the RSPCA and BDH at various levels in the priority boroughs as outlined.

SDU officers also:

• Act as point of contact for each MPS borough
• Deliver training to all MPS Safer Schools Officers regarding the ‘People with dogs’ interactive DVD to teenagers to be cascaded in schools
• Deliver training and familiarisation on the subject, in particular the officer safety considerations, to MPS SNT staff, Territorial Support Group (TSG) and recruit officers at The Peel Centre

C. Other organisational and community implications

Equality and Diversity Impact

1. We do not currently record the diversity of offenders/owners as Dangerous Dogs Act offences are neither reportable nor recordable.

2. From the statistics currently recorded/available, older white North Europeans, both male and female, are disproportionately affected as victims of dog bites. Statistics requested by the GLA sometime ago from the NHS in relation to injury/victims are currently awaited.

Consideration of MET Forward

3. The work of the MPS, DSU and SDU directly support the ‘Dogs as weapons’ program outlined in Met Streets. The work of the SDU is prioritised, where possible, to support the other strands too, such as working with SNT’s and gang units.

6. Whilst the MPS and SDU focus upon the enforcement issues this work in isolation will not result in long term success. This will only be achieved where local authorities and criminal justice partners are fully engaged and play their part.

Financial Implications

7. Despite the work outlined elsewhere in this report it should be noted that the present budget of £2.65m per annum may not be sufficient to meet the demands placed upon the MPS at this time.

8. Changes to the Law or the way that the MPS deal with this situation may result in cost savings. Equally as we approach the London 2012 Olympic Games a more proactive enforcement approach may be required. At present the demand trend remains upwards,

9. The present contract, which came into force on 1 June 2010, was based upon the daily requirement to kennel approximately 400 dogs. Within the provisions of the new contract is the requirement that the ‘daily dog rate’ includes a basic veterinary care package. Further to this the contract manager has proposed a pricing structure to the veterinary providers that ensures best value is achieved. Both measures aim to ensure that expenditure on kenneling is as cost effective as possible.

10. However, following high profile events at the end of 2009 the number of dogs seized by the MPS exceeded the contractual level of 400 and reached a peak of 483 in March 2010. Indeed the average number of kennels required each day by the MPS has been 452 kennels for the first four months of this financial year. Based on this level of demand continuing, the estimated spend for the year is £2.95m which is £300k above budget. In 2010-11, this overspend is being managed within CO’s overall budget; however, the SDU are doing everything that they can to reduce expenditure in year.

Legal Implications

11. There are no direct legal implications arising from this information report.

12. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, the Dogs Act 1871 and the Offence against the Person Act 1861 set out the key statutory provisions dealing with dangerous dogs.

13. This report highlights it is imperative for the police service to work together with partners to effectively deal with the issue of dangerous dogs and making London safer. The report also sets out the steps taken by the MPS to ensure the police service remains responsive in light of increased incidents in the London area.

Environmental Implications

12. There are no additional environmental implications arising from this update report at this time.

Risk Implications

13. The present financial difficulties being faced by all agencies could have a negative impact upon the level of service that they are able to provide or their future commitment to take more responsibility. For example stray dog services provided in some boroughs are facing funding cuts. It is inevitable that the public will turn to the police for assistance if and where services become limited.

14. If a program of Court closures is embarked upon in London that could have a negative effect upon MPS ability to deal effectively and quickly with dog related cases which again would lead to increased costs.

Background papers

None.

Contact details

Report author: Inspector Trevor Hughes, MPS: 0208 247 5478

For information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Reasons for dog seizures

In addition to the above in excess of a further 100 dogs have been seized at welfare organisations.

Dangerous Dogs Act

S1 - prohibited by Law e.g Pitbull

S3 - caused injury or apprehension of injury in public or private

S1 & S3 - a prohibited dog that also breaches S3

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback