MPS response to dangerous dog offences

Report: 5
Date: 5 July 2007
By: Assistant Commissioner Central Operations on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is used effectively within the Metropolitan Police Area. There are comparatively few reported instances of its breach and a very small reported number of dogs being used in other criminal offences.

A. Recommendations

That

1. The Committee note the contents of the report

B. Supporting information

1. The Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) was enacted in 1991 and amended in 1997. The MPS use two main parts of the Act. Section 1, which prohibits certain types of dogs (mainly Pit Bull Types) and Section 3 which deals with any dog which is dangerously out of control in a public place.

2. In the period 2001 – 2006 inclusive, 69 individuals are recorded on the Crime Reporting and Information System (CRIS) as having been investigated for offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. These figures break down as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 – Numbers of individuals recorded on CRIS as having been prosecuted for Dangerous Dogs Act Offences.

3. There were no recorded cases of anyone who was prosecuted under the Dangerous Dogs Act being recorded as in possession of another weapon at the time.

4. There is very little evidence of anyone being in possession of a dog used to commit an offence not covered by the Dangerous Dogs Act. Those that were recorded are shown in Table 2:

Table 2 – Numbers of individuals recorded on CRIS as using a dog on other criminal offences.

5. There is no specific ‘flag’ on CRIS to show a dog as an integral part of non Dangerous Dogs Act offences. This may bring the above table into some question.

Seized dogs

6. The following numbers of dogs were seized by MPS officers for DDA related offences:

Table 3 – The numbers of dogs seized by MPS officers under the Dangerous Dogs Act

Monitoring

7. Since 2002 monthly meetings are held to review every currently detained dog. The aims of this meeting are to ensure that no dog is kept any longer then it should be and to review the progression of every criminal case. The meeting is chaired by Superintendent Ovens and attended by Dangerous Dog Act expert officers from each Dog Section Unit.

8. A spread sheet is maintained to track the cost, length of time in custody and case progression of each case. Each case has a Dog Section expert assigned to it to offer advice on the legislation, and court disposal.

9. Dogs are behaviourally examined by independent experts through partnership agreements. Those dogs that can be re-homed after proceedings have concluded are re-homed. Dogs are only destroyed on the personal authority of Superintendent Ovens.

Partnership arrangements

10. The main MPS partners in this area are the Kennel Club, Battersea Dog’s and Cat’s Home, The Dogs Trust, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

11. These partner agencies supply the staff to carry out the independent behaviour assessments at no cost to the MPS.

12. Superintendent Ovens is the MPS representative on a number of partner boards, including the Dog Legislation Advisory Group, which he chairs.

13. Over the past five years the MPS has moved from a position where they received regular negative comment in the ‘canine press’ because of their treatment of dogs in custody, to a position where these partner agencies actively support them in their work and when reported on in the press.

14. There is currently a working party with the GLA, Battersea Dog’s and Cat’s Home, the PDSA, the RAPCA and the Safer Neighbourhood Unit to establish a youth engagement tactic for educating young people whom own dogs. The vision of the group is to provide obedience and dog classes to promote care and control of dogs. The working group is in its infancy. There are some activities planned for this summer with the London Borough of Wandsworth being the pilot site.

ASBOs and Safer Neighbourhood issues

15. One ASBO has been granted for a dog related issue, in July 2005 in Camden. This was to control a man allowing his dogs to be aggressive in Camden parks.

16. Dog fighting behaviour has, however, been set as a SNT priority on 73 occasions. In 2006 it was set 55 times and so far in 2007 it has been set 18 times. It should be stressed these are priorities set on low level dog and owner related activity. Very little of this behaviour would even be covered by the Dangerous Dog Act. Some are listed as ‘dog fighting’. These do not relate to any organised dog fighting but rather poor control of animals in streets and parks.

Table 4 – Number of SNT ‘Dog Fighting’ priorities set by Borough

17. Dog fouling has been set as a priority 59 times. 39 times in 2006 and 20 times so far in 2007.

18. There are currently two options on the system to count dog related priorities. Fighting or Fouling, therefore the whole range of problems have to be fitted into these two categories.

Legal implications

19. Following the recent case of a Section 1 dog killing a young child in Liverpool, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have instigated a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act.

20. The MPS have responded to this review through Commander Simon Bray. The MPS do not support any change to Section 1 of the DDA. The MPS support an extension of Section 3 to include private premises.

22. The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police instigated an amnesty to hand in ‘Dangerous Dogs’. He invited other forces, including the MPS, to take part in and support this amnesty. After considering the request the MPS did not do so. It is our belief that the amnesty would not have the desired effect to remove ‘dangerous dogs’ from the streets, it was thoroughly opposed by our main partners in this area and may well have led to many ‘innocent’ dogs coming into police hands with which we would have to deal.

23. The Dog Legislation Advisory group, on which the MPS is represented, have also submitted a paper to the review with two main recommendations. These are to extend the power of Section 3 of the DDA to include private premises and to introduce new powers of control orders to allow preventative action to take place before dogs cause damage to people.

C. Race and equality impact

1. There are no implications.

D. Financial implications

1. Dogs seized under the Dangerous Dogs Act are kept in secure, contracted kennels. The current cost is £14 per dog per day. This figure was recently reduced (at the last tendering process) from £17 per dog per day.

2. The cost over the last few years is shown in Table 5.

Table 5 - Cost of kennelling seized under the DDA.

3. Any increase in the number of seizures has a commensurate impact in the amount spent. Dogs often have to be kept for long periods of time, often over a year, whilst the legal process takes place.

E. Background papers

None

F. Contact details

Report author: Superintendent Simon Ovens, Royal Parks OCU, MPS.

For more information contact:

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

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback