M52 Dangerous dogs

1. Security protective marking

1.1. Not protectively marked.

2. Summary of changes

2.1. The following changes have been made to this policy on 15 June 2010:

• policy purpose has been amended to include encouraging best value;
• the timescales in paragraph 8 have been amended;
• the case management and responsibilities in paragraph 11 have been amended;
• flowchart in paragraph 12 has been amended;
• Dangerous Dogs DD-01-09 has been added to paragraph 12;
• Dangerous Dog Disclaimer Form has been added to paragraph 12;
• Property Animal Form has been added to paragraph 12.
  

2.2. This policy is scheduled for review in June 2012.

3. Application

3.1. This policy applies to all police officers and police staff, including the extended police family and those working voluntarily or under contract to Kent Police and must be aware of and are required to comply with this policy.

3.2. Whilst this policy applies to all police officers and police support employees, it has particular relevance to call handlers, their supervisors, operational officers/staff, investigators and those working within the Tactical Operations Group.  The Chief Officer lead within Kent Police is the Assistant Chief Constable responsible for Tactical Operations.

3.3. Incidents will be graded and responded to in line with the force call grade and response policy. 

 
3.4. Criminal prosecutions or other legal proceedings should be commenced as soon as possible and in any event within 14 days of the incident (unless exceptional circumstances apply). 

3.5. In the event of a suspected offence under Dogs Act 1871, before a complaint is laid under this act the matter must be referred to the Legal Services Department who will determine whether or not the matter is civil or criminal in nature.  The Crown Prosecution Service will deal with all matters deemed as criminal under this Act.  Legal Services will review whether the matter is civil and thus dealt with by the laying of a complaint by a complainant at Magistrates Court.

 

4. Purpose

4.1. The main aim of this policy is to ensure that our response to incidents involving dangerous dogs is lawful, consistent, reasonable, proportionate and that we diligently and expeditiously pursue each case to its earliest conclusion. This approach is designed to increase public confidence in Kent Police and generate support from the public.

4.2. The policy is underpinned by procedures designed to provide clear, definitive and unambiguous direction for all those involved in dangerous dog incidents.  It defines effective processes for the investigation and management of incidents relating to dangerous dogs.

4.3. Specifically the objectives of this policy are to:

• Reduce and minimise the risk of harm to the public;
• Reduce the opportunities for the criminal use of dogs;
• Maximise the number of dog related incidents detected by bringing those responsible to justice
• Reduce the number of incidents of anti-social behaviour involving dogs;
• Maintain the highest standards of professionalism;
• Maintain a victim-orientated approach to such incidents.
• To encourage best value and minimise unnecessary expenditure.

5. Definitions

5.1. A dog will be classed as dangerous in the following circumstances:

5.1.1. Offences (prohibited breeds or types)

• Section 1(1) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 sets out which types of dogs are prohibited, namely Pit Bull Terriers (Pit Bull Types), Japanese Tosas, Dogo Argentinos and Fila Brazilieros.
• Section 1(2) prohibits the breeding, sale, exchange, advertising, or gift of any dog listed in section 1(1). It also prohibits such dogs from being in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead. Furthermore, it also prohibits the abandoning of, or allowing of, such dogs to stray.
• Section 1(3) prohibits the ownership of any type listed under s1(1) unless it is exempted on the Index of Exempted Dogs as per s1(5).
  

5.1.2. Offences (any breed or type)

• Section 3(1) provides for the owner or the person in charge of a dog (at the time of the offence) to be guilty of an offence if they allow a dog of any breed to be ‘dangerously out of control in a public place’. This offence is aggravated if the dog injures a person whilst out of control.
   

 5.1.3. Enforcement provisions

• Section 5(1) allows for a dog in a public place to be seized by a police constable or authorised officer of a local authority if it is of a type as set out in s1(1) or is of any type or breed that appears to be dangerously out of control at the time (as per s3(1)).
• Section 5(2) provides for a warrant to be sought for the seizure of dogs on private premises if they are evidence of any offence under the Act.

5.1.4. Further consideration

• Dogs may also be seized from private premises under s19 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1986 (PACE), when a police constable is lawfully on the premises providing they are evidence of an offence (e.g. where a drugs warrant is executed and a Pit Bull type dog is found on the premises).
• Statutory presumption – If a police officer alleges that a dog is a Pit Bull type then it is assumed to be such a dog until the defence/owner proves otherwise (Reversal of the burden of proof).
  

5.2 Officer In The Case (OIC)

• All dangerous dog investigations will have an allocated OIC, who may or may not also be the seizing officer. The OIC will be responsible for the thorough and expeditious investigation of alleged dangerous dog incidents. The OIC will also be responsible for the preparation of case files for presentation to court. The OIC will be appointed from within the area where the dog is seized or will be appointed from within the department requesting the assessment of a dog that is later found to be prohibited/dangerous (Please see Section 11 for further OIC responsibilities).
  

5.3 Dog Legislation Officer (DLO)

5.3.1. Kent Police currently has two accredited DLOs, who are able to identify dogs that are alleged to be of a prohibited breed or type. Our DLO’s  can be obtained out of hours via the on-call Dog Section supervisor, who can be contacted through the FCC inspector. Wherever possible, the on-call Dog Section supervisor should be consulted prior to seizing a dangerous dog. Kent Police Dog Section will provide dog handlers to accompany BCU staff and advise on possible options available to them.

5.3.2. DLO Responsibilities include:

•  To offer support/advice on dangerous dog legislation
• To support the OIC with advice on case building
• To carry out an examination of the dog and provide expert identification and witness evidence for case presentation
• To review the kennel allocation and case load to ensure early resolution
  

5.3.3. It should be borne in mind that the DLO WILL NOT seize any suspected dangerous dog, which remains the responsibility of the attending officer from the area in which the dog was located. Alternatively, where a  central department requests the examination of a dog which is later identified to be prohibited or dangerous, an officer from within this department will be responsible for seizing the dog. Further to this, the DLO will not be responsible for the on-going investigation of dangerous dog cases, which again will remain the responsibility of the OIC. Any costs incurred as a result of the seizure, kennelling or investigation of dangerous dog incidents remain the responsibility of the BCU where the dog was seized or the central department requesting the examination of a dog that is later identified as being prohibited/dangerous.

6. Outcome evaluation

6.1. Outcomes will reflect specific objectives and be measured against these objectives on a regular basis.

 
6.2. Implementation of, and compliance with, the policy should positively impact upon the force's strategic objective of ‘building public confidence’.

7. Context

7.1. Any action under this policy must have a legal basis (e.g. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 etc.) and must comply with the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the European Human Rights Act. Those actions should use the least intrusive and damaging means necessary to achieve the aims, which must be legitimate, justified and proportionate.

 

7.2. Any dangerous dogs that are seized must be added to the ‘Dangerous Dogs’ database, maintained by Kent Police Dog Section This will enable accurate tracking of all cases.  The overview and responsibility for the accuracy of the database will rest with the Dog Training Sergeant at Stockbury Police Kennels.

7.3. Stray dogs that are not identified or subject to the Dangerous Dogs Act should be assessed by a trained behaviourist prior to re-homing (This procedure is not in place at this time). This assessment is the responsibility of a third party animal welfare organisation (RSPCA etc). As with normal policy, if after 7 days no owner/keeper is identified, then ownership is relinquished and a decision regarding the re-homing or disclaiming can be made after 7 days.
 

7.4. Dogs that are classed as ‘dangerous’ due to type only and are too young to be accurately assessed will be subject to examination by an accredited DLO (i.e. dogs below 9 months of age). Where there is reason to suspect that such a dog may be a pit bull type the DLO should inform the owner of their suspicion, informing them that they will not be able to give an accurate assessment until the dog has obtained at least 9 months of age. The dog’s demeanour and antecedent history may well provide an indication of its suitability to remain with the owner. The DLO will explain the possible implications of the owner/keeper keeping the dog until it can be accurately assessed. Any concerns, implications, advice or control measures given to the owner/keeper should be recorded in the DLO’s pocket notebook and offered to the owner/keeper to sign and date. The DLO will then reassess the dog/s at the nine-month period. When determining whether a dog should remain with the owner it should be noted that this would only apply to dangerous dogs under the age of nine months.

8. Timescales

8.1. A dynamic risk assessment should accompany each dangerous dog case, in order to ensure public safety and justify any delays.

8.2. A decision by police to seize and remove a ‘dangerous dog’ has the potential for owners to become greatly upset and for animals to become distressed. This may have an adverse impact on public confidence and undermine Kent Police’s reputation. There can also be high financial costs for kennelling, veterinary attention etc.

8.3. It will be the responsibility of the OIC to review the cost of any kennelling, veterinary bills or other expenditure appertaining to the seizure and kennelling of a seized dog. The matter must be reviewed on at least a bi weekly basis.  On going costs must be brought to the attention of the BCU Business Manager on the BCU where the dog was seized or where the seizing officer comes from.

8.4. Dangerous dog cases, therefore, must be progressed speedily and concluded at the earliest opportunity. Criminal prosecutions or other legal proceedings should be commenced as soon as possible and in any event within 14 days of the incident (unless exceptional circumstances apply).

8.5. Line Managers of OIC’s must closely supervise and monitor all dangerous dog cases.

9. Allocation

9.1. The removal of dangerous dogs can be undertaken by the Local Authority Dog Wardens, Kennel Contractor (on behalf of the police) and Kent Police Dog Handlers. Untrained and inexperienced officers/staff should not attempt to control a dangerous dog unless there is no other option and then, only where it is necessary to protect the public.

9.2. Where a dog is deemed to be ‘dangerously out of control’ and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the animal may attack, or is in the process of attacking a member(s) of the public, the Force Contact and Control Centre should be updated immediately. The Force Contact and Control Centre inspector will give consideration to deploying a minimum of 2 dog handlers with electric shields to the scene. This arrangement may facilitate the containment and safe capture of such dogs. Alternatively, the Force Contact and Control Centre inspector may consider that the humane destruction of the animal, by armed response officers, is more appropriate (covered under existing protocols). Every incident must be viewed according to its individual circumstances, however, it must be borne in mind that the protection, safety and well being of the public, is our foremost priority. Follow this link for guidance on use of the electric shield.
 

10. Analysis

10.1. Many of the dangerous dogs that are imported into the country travel through the port of Dover from Calais.

10.1.1. BCU Intelligence Units should research dangerous dog cases and liaise closely with the Local Authority (and RSPCA where appropriate) in order that proactive intervention can be made, utilising all current intelligence and any previous reports.  Submission of intelligence should always be timely and positively encouraged, following every incident concerning the Dangerous Dogs Act(s) or other associated dog legislation.

11. Case management and responsibilities

11.1. The Officer in the Case (OIC) will:

• ensure that a Storm log has been created for each incident involving dangerous dogs. Email 'brief' details/CAD reference to the Drug Liaison Officer (DLOs) email account.
• refer to RSPCA status dogs summit 2009 document and advice flow chart as reference guides.
• consult with a DLO and supervisor regarding whether the dog should be seized or not. If appropriate/available, the DLO will attend the location with the OIC to gain an early indication to the breed type. This should in turn minimise unnecessary kennel costs.
• ensure that the dog is properly and lawfully seized (if applicable).
• arrest/interview the dog's owner and any other identified offenders (if applicable).
• ensure that the dog's owner agrees and signs an undertaking where the dog has not been seized. This only refers to dogs under nine months old where true and proper identification cannot be readily ascertained (DLOs will assist with this process).
• in all cases photographs should be taken of the dog in question. Sufficient photographs should be taken in order to assist the identification process.
• if placed initially into the nominated police station kennels, the dog should be booked into special property and the kennel door 'sealed' shut with an exhibit seal for continuity and integrity of evidence. This must never be to the detriment of the dog's health and well-being. Food and water must be provided as necessary under the guidance of the DLOs/Area dog handler.
• complete a (5x5x5) intelligence report (including as much detail as possible such as: the dog's size, colour, type, demeanour, circumstances of seizure etc.)
• ensure details are provided for inclusion on the Dangerous Dogs Database by completing the attached seizure form and emailing it to the DLOs account.
• obtain/complete any relevant statements and secure specialist evidence (i.e. vets/DLO's etc) as appropriate.
• prepare the case file for CPS/Legal Services Dept (including DLO endorsement of the MG3).
• provide a bi weekly fiscal update with the BCU Business Manager.
• ensure that the victim(s) is/are aware of whom the investigating officer is and ensure there is full compliance with the 'Victims Code and Witness Charter'.
• keep the dog owner updated (at least weekly unless otherwise agreed) as to the condition of their dog.
• on conclusion of the case ensure that the court decision is upheld (e.g. dog destroyed, returned, exempted) and that the owner is provided with relevant information and documentation. (DLOs will assist with this process and be responsible for updating the national database of exempted dogs).
• on no account will the location of the police approved kennel where a seized dog is located, be disclosed to the owner or any third party.

11.2. The OIC's Line Manager will:

• review the case at least once every 14 days and ensure the investigation is being progressed competently and expeditiously.
• provide support and guidance to the OIC.
• ensure the costs for kennelling, veterinary attention etc. are minimised.

11.3. The Dog Section Inspector (or delegate) will:

• be responsible for updating this policy when appropriate
• maintain a force Dangerous Dogs Database.
• maintain contractual compliance.
• provide advice to staff and ensure consistency throughout the organisation.
• ensure BCU staff are supported with specialist dog handlers and DLO's when appropriate.

11.4. The Force Communications Inspector will be responsible for overseeing that dangerous dogs incidents are correctly graded. Moreover, the Force Contact and Control Inspector will likewise ensure that the appropriate deployment of resources is dispatched within the agreed timescales, ensuring that this policy is complied with. Incidents involving 'dangerous dogs' have potential to seriously undermine the public's confidence in effectiveness of the police's response.

11.4.1. Thus, consideration should be given to classifying these events as a 'critical incident', where it is appropriate to do so (see policy M118 on critical incidents).

11.5. BCU Commander (or delegate) will retain overall responsibility for dangerous dogs cases in each BCU (with exception of Section 4B civil cases). The BCU Commander will identify and manage the internal processes required to monitor and measure the policy and provide feedback to victims.

11.6. Legal Services will be responsible for the processing of cases under section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the presentation of such cases before the court.

12. Reference material

 

12.1. DEFRA Dangerous Dogs Law (Guide for Enforcers) document

12.2. RSPCA Status Dogs Summit 2009 document

12.3. Guidance on handling dangerous dogs

12.4. Flowchart - when considering if a dog should be seized

12.5. Dangerous dog seizure form 3890 - available on Word

12.6. Health and safety risk assessment - handling dangerous dogs

12.7. Use of electric shield

12.8. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991

12.9. Dangerous Dogs Act 1997

12.10. Dangerous Dogs Act 1871

12.11. Dangerous Dogs Act 1989

12.12. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

12.13. Guard Dogs Act 1975 Animal Welfare Act 2006

12.14. Metropolitan Police Act 1839

12.15. Town Police Clauses Act 1847

12.16. Offences against the Persons Act 1861 (legislation can be found under PNLD on inSite)

12.17. Dangerous Dogs DD-01-09

12.18. Dangerous Dog Disclaimer Form

12.19. Property Animal Form

13. Retention and disposal of records

13.1. Documents mentioned in the above policy will be retained for the period specified in the Disposal Schedule.

14. Equality impact assessment

14.1. This policy has been assessed with regard to its relevance to equality. As a result of this assessment the policy has been graded as having a low potential impact.

 

14.2. Attached is the latest equality impact assessment that forms part of the policy review process.