Information regarding the Dangerous Dogs Act 191 as amended.

Dear Ms Green,

Reference No: RFI2009000258

Thank you for your request for information dated 24/03/2009 concerning:

Series of questions under the dangerous Dogs Act 1991

This request will be dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

Your request will now be considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Act, subject
to the information not being exempt or containing a reference to a third
party. In some circumstances Thames Valley Police may be unable to achieve
this deadline. If this is likely you will be informed and given a revised
time-scale at the earliest opportunity.

There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of the
information you request. If this is the case you will be informed and the 20
working day timescale will be suspended until we receive payment from you. If
you choose not to make a payment then your request will remain unanswered.

Some requests may also require either full or partial transference to
another public authority in order to answer your query in the fullest
possible way. Again, you will be informed if this is the case.

Thank you for your interest in Thames Valley Police.

Yours sincerely,

C. Picking

Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections

Dear Ms Green,

Reference No: RFI2009000258

Thank you for your request for information dated 24/03/2009 which for
clarity I have repeated with our responses.

1) What number of dogs has been seized by your police force between
30/09/08 and 28/02/09 under section 1 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991?

We do not usually seize Sect 1 dogs if we are supporting them going on the
Index of Exempted Dogs. In this case they would remain with the owner once
identification has been made that the dog is of the type.

We would only seize Sect 1 dogs that we were looking to ask the courts for
a destruction order on.

We also seize Sect 1 dogs where an owner can not be identified or where
the owner has relinquished all rights and responsibilities for the dog.

2) What number of dogs has been seized by your police force between
30/09/08 and 28/02/09 under section 3 of Dangerous Dogs Act 1991?

We would only seize a dog that either the owner had relinquished all
rights and responsibility for or one that the injuries were so serious we
would be seeking a destruction order from the court.

Often Sect 3 dogs are left with the owner and an agreement is made as to
the control measures they will put in place to ensure the dog is no longer
a danger to the public.

3) What number of dogs has been seized by your police force between
31/09/08 and 31/02/09 as being used in a crime?

Whilst this is becoming more common, it is often the case where a Sect 1
dog is used to intimidate a person rather than used to attack / distract
etc. The Sect 1 dog would be dealt with under the DDA 1991 with the
criminal offence as the supporting evidence for a destruction order. If
the dog was not a Sect 1 dog, then the dog would be seized as evidence of
the criminal offence rather than for a Sect 3 offence.

4) How many dogs held by your police force have died or been destroyed as
a result of unknown cause, illness or behavioural issues while in your
care (if known please give details) between 30/09/08 and 28/02/09?

Some dogs have been put to sleep whilst in our care if they are unclaimed
and would not be suitable for re-homing due to behavioural issues or
injuries previously sustained. This would only be on the advice of the
kennels and vets involved in their care. No dogs are known to have died
through injuries or neglect whilst in our care.

5) What is the total cost covered by your police force, for kennelling,
vet treatment, legal bills and any other associated costs for holding
seized dogs under the DDA between 30/09/08 and 28/02/09?

The total spent for this period is £11,878.94

This billing relates to 14 dogs in total, 2 of which were returned to
their owners.

Thank you for your interest in Thames Valley Police and I must apologise
for the delay in my response to you.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Picking

Freedom of Information Officer

show quoted sections