Dear North Wales Police,

Could you please provide the data that you hold on record on dog related harassment incidents in the past three years.

1. The number of such incidents on record.
2. The number of prosecutions

=
3. And the policy of the NW Police regarding dealing with dog related harassment incidents. Particularly with regard to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
(Especially reference 1.7 Criminal offences).

http://researchbriefings.files.parliamen...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Thank you - have received a helpful reply from another police information team:, which may assist you and help me to form a picture from the responses:

‘There are four offences that fall under the PHA 1997 and they are listed
below. The way of finding the information that we would use would be to
keyword search all offences. Would you like crimes where the dog is owned
by the victim or perpetrator, or both?

Offence Title
Protection from Harassment (S2 PHA 1997)
Putting people in fear of violence (S4 PHA 1997)
Purse course of conduct - Stalking (S2A PHA 1997)
Stalking (S4A 1 (b)PHA 1997 - either involving fear of violence or
Stalking involving serious alarm/ distress )’.

==

The reason for the request:

I am trying to find out whether there had been any increase in incidents where dog walkers and other walkers ( without dogs ) have been involved in incidents where dogs - with or without their owners being present- have either attacked dog owners, or their dogs, or other citizens, or been threatened by them.

Including incidents where neither dog, or owner has been bitten - but felt threatened, or harassed and reported the matter to the police,

My request stems from the amount of discussion on social media about this problem, which seems to be increasing.

So I have asked for 3- years of stats in order to see - if indeed - these sort of incidents are on the increase.

===

If it is possible, could you break down the stats into these offence titles, over the three year period, which is from the date of request.

If you have ready information tables to hand on these offences a financial yearly basis, this could be sent too.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear North Wales Police,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of North Wales Police's handling of my FOI request 'Dog related harassment incidents'.

My understanding is that no dogs were involved in any recorded incidents with the NW police in the last three years.

Could you review this please?

My understanding from another police force, using S16, is that there is a way of determing incidents which involve dogs.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/d...

Yours faithfully,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

That is your review?

Since you did not provide any S16 help and assistance, it was rather difficult to be specific, without S16 help that another police force gave, which added to my initial request.

So that all the information in the request formed the request with that added clarification.

Please, once again, confirm that there were the NWPolice hold NO recorded data on incidents where dogs were involved, in the past three years.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

One incident, involving a dog, is reported by the BBC.

This would appear to fulfill the criteria on it being a dangerous dog n the loose, posing a threat to the public.

Or was that not the case?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nort...

- And, for accuracy, I’m [title redacted] Oakley

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Here is another recent example, reported in the press.

Here is the NW rural crime manager being quoted on dangerous dogs:

‘Rob Taylor, manager of the team , said he was “at the end of his tether” with thoughtless dog owners.

During a social media video on Twitter this afternoon, Mr Taylor said: “We have got to that stage of the day where I can reflect a harrowing, harrowing day’.

Clearly there is more than one incident involving dangerous dogs, unless Mr Taylor is misinforming the public.

Please confirm or deny that no data is held on this, and other dog harassment incidents.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/north-w...

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

My request:

‘Dog related harassment incidents’:

Please read the definitions, incorporated into my request:

related
adjective
belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.
"sleeping sickness and related diseases"

synonyms: connected, interconnected, associated, linked, coupled, correlated, allied, affiliated, accompanying, concomitant, corresponding, analogous, kindred, parallel, comparable, equivalent, homologous, incidental More
associated with the specified item or process, especially causally.

harassment

aggressive pressure or intimidation.

synonyms: persecution, harrying, pestering, badgering, intimidation, bother, annoyance, aggravation, irritation, pressure, pressurization, force, coercion, molestation; More

By these definitions, clearly you hold data on incidents concerning harassment by dogs.

If you are still maintaining that my request does not cover ANY harassment related incidents by dogs , I will refer to the Information Commissioner’s Office ..with examples I have managed to find online.

Otherwise please fulfil the request within the correct time FOIA constraint.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Thank you for your response.

However, in that it doesn’t seem that you have read my clarification on the Subject above, or that if my gender.

For clarity,.. for the second time, I would appreciate it if you could get my gender right.
I am a female.

If you have not read that and adjusted your response, then I would assume that you haven’t received, read, or understoood part of the above public responses, or you would have adjusted your response.

Other than that, it would be a demonstration of contempt to a FOIA requester, in continuing to address a female as a male.
And I’m sure that you do not wish to treat your requesters with open contempt, representing the police as a Male
preferrential organisation.

==

And since I had no S16 help and assistance for defining my request ( which Incidentally another police authority rightly and properly gave me as an assistance) as I cannot be conversant with police procedures, I regard your dismissal of my request to be cursory.

=

So I view your responses , particularly in the light of press information regarding harassment by dogs - in the press, which must have occasioned some reported data, to be obstructive in forcing me to make another request - without properly reading, or evaluating my responses.

Meanwhile, I will search more incidents pertaining to this request, to present to the Information Commissioner’s Office. Should you not undertake a proper review under FOIA..

Please let me know if you are still refusing to provide a proper FOIA review to me.. and not to your gender preferential ‘Mr Oakley’.

Please use the name below as reference for any further communication, since any complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office will be from a female.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Thank you.

If your response is helpful and assista my enquiry, it should save the Information Commissioner’s Office work.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Another police authority has offer S16 help.-

I’ve replied:

Sorry, I didn’t understand the difference between incidents and crimes.

If you can, I’d like

1. Incidents ( calls etc)

2. Recorded crimes

3. Charged

4. Found guilty.

That should give the whole picture.

If you could do the same, I’d be grateful.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Since you have already stated that there were NO incidents or any other criteria under the references kindly supplied by another police authority:

Protection from Harassment (S2 PHA 1997)
Putting people in fear of violence (S4 PHA 1997)
Purse course of conduct - Stalking (S2A PHA 1997)
Stalking (S4A 1 (b)PHA 1997 - either involving fear of violence or Stalking involving serious alarm/ distress)’.

Plus the process criteria provided by yet another helpful police authority:

1. Incidents ( calls etc)
2. Recorded crimes
3. Charged
4. Found guilty.

I am at a loss to be more specific.

As you must have searched your system for the word ‘dog’, which I am informed is possible - and yet not managed to find one single reference, despite press reports of cases( fulfilling the request for data ) in your area, then if that is your final response, I will complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Please let me know that that is the case.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

As I cannot give you any more clarifications and it is still maintained that there were no dog related incidents in the past three years, I’ve passed the request into the Information Commissioner’s Office for a Decision.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Thank you. But a reminder that this is a public FOIA enquiry.

Therefore it will stand on the wdtk site for any other journalists, researchers, or those with an interest.

The problem seems to be the interpretation of the request,.

- Dog related incidents.

Which other police authorities have interpreted as roughly anticipated. And been extremely helpful.

However, if you now have the requested data, outlined in the S16 help and assistance given by other police authorities, then please provide it as it will save the Information Commissioner’s Office a great deal of trouble..... And, of course, money from the public purse.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Thank you.

I assume that you are referring to the requests on wdtk.

How do you know that I haven’t made requests off wdtk?

I have now put in a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office .

It’s a shame, that having now admitted that there are dog related incidents, instead of insisting that there were none within the three years, ( or you would have provided the Data,) that you cannot see your way to simply providing the requested data - referring to the help and assistance provided by other authorities, who bothered to try and clarify the request from the beginning - and avoiding the public expense of the Information Commissioner’s Office’s investigation.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

I have sent you a dictionary definition of harassment.

Presumably you don’t agree with it.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

As you seem to have ignored the definition of the request given to you, here it is again:

Dog related harassment incidents’:

Please read the definitions, incorporated into my request:

related
adjective
belonging to the same family, group, or type; connected.
"sleeping sickness and related diseases"

synonyms: connected, interconnected, associated, linked, coupled, correlated, allied, affiliated, accompanying, concomitant, corresponding, analogous, kindred, parallel, comparable, equivalent, homologous, incidental More
associated with the specified item or process, especially causally.

harassment

aggressive pressure or intimidation.

synonyms: persecution, harrying, pestering, badgering, intimidation, bother, annoyance, aggravation, irritation, pressure, pressurization, force, coercion, molestation; More

By these definitions, clearly you hold data on incidents concerning harassment by dogs.

If you are still maintaining that my request does not cover ANY harassment related incidents by dogs , I will refer to the Information Commissioner’s Office ..with examples I have managed to find online.

Otherwise please fulfil the request within the correct time FOIA constraint.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

The dictionary definition was a clarification of the terms to be used in the request,.

(Following the clarification procedures inherent within the FOIA).

However, since you have ruled out my helpful clarifications , I can do no more but wait for the Information Commissioner’s Office ‘s Decision on the matter.

As the request is now with the Information Commissioner’s Office, then I suggest we wait for the outcome, which will be referenced on wdtk for the public. Please therefore correspond no further, unless you can now provide the requested data, with the clarifications provided.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

As this will be part of my evidence to the Information Commissioner’s Office , I refere you to your own disclosure log

https://www.north-wales.police.uk/media/...

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Dear Freedom of Information Team,

Here is a Handy checklist, from the Met.

Not exactly known for its country pursuits...

It’s clarity may assist you:

Animal crime
Wildlife and animal crime can be a complex area to understand.

To find out what wildlife crime is, go here.

Crimes involving animals that aren’t wildlife crimes, include:

livestock worrying
livestock theft
hunting
animal cruelty
dogs being out of control in public places
banned dogs
Livestock worrying

Livestock worrying is a criminal offence and comes under the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.

‘Worrying’ is where a dog attacks or chases livestock causing injury or suffering.

This isn’t just a threat to a farmer or land owner’s livelihood, it’s also a dangerous situation for the animals involved, and could lead to more risk if the animals get onto the road.

A farmer is allowed to kill the dog if it’s worrying their livestock.

Always keep your dog under control around other animals and if you see a dog on the loose worrying animals, call 101.

Livestock theft

Grazing animals can be an easy target especially in remote rural locations.

check on your animal(s) regularly
report any suspicious vehicles
improve security around the area where the animal(s) graze
ear tags, horn brands, freeze marking, hoof branding, tattoos and microchips can all help identify your animal(s) if they’re stolen
in the case of cattle (cattle, bison or buffalo) you will need to report the loss or theft of an animal to the British Cattle Movement Service within seven days
some areas have Farm Watch schemes, which might be worth joining

Remember, a horse passport is a legal requirement. You can find out how to apply for one here.

Report livestock theft to us either online or by calling 101.

Hunting

Fox hunting

Fox hunting is illegal; trail and drag hunting (where the hunt follows an artificial scent laid out in a trail) is legal. Dogs can be used legally as part of a trail or drag hunt.

There are exemptions under the Hunting Act 2004 which allow for wild animals (including foxes) to be ‘humanely’ killed. Dogs can be legally used to ‘flush’ a fox from cover so it can be shot.

It is an offence to:

engage or participate in the pursuit of a wild animal
use or allow a dog or dogs to pursue a wild animal
knowingly allow land to be entered for the purpose of hunting a fox
hunt foxes with dogs

If you think someone has broken the ban on fox hunting then that's a wildlife crime and you need to let us know, either online or by calling 101.

Animal cruelty

Animal cruelty is when someone doesn’t care for or deliberately hurts an animal.

It can include anything from physical violence, to deliberate mental distress or neglect, for example not feeding or cleaning an animal.

If you see, or suspect, that a person may be treating an animal badly, whether this is physical violence, neglect or any other form of cruelty, you should report this to the RSPCA’s 24-hour cruelty line.

You can contact them on 0300 1234 999. The call will cost the same as any call to a UK landline number.

We work with the RSPCA to investigate cases of animal cruelty.

Dogs out of control in public places

It’s an offence to let a dog be dangerously out of control whether that’s in public or private.

A dog is considered to be out of control if it:

injures someone
makes someone worried that it might injure them

A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if:

it attacks someone’s animal
the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal

Please note, a farmer is allowed to kill your dog if it’s worrying their livestock.

If you see a dog loose or seemingly out of control, please tell us by calling 101.

Banned dogs

In the UK, it’s against the law to own certain types of dog. These are the:

Pit Bull Terrier
Japanese Tosa
Dogo Argentino
Fila Brasileiro

It’s also against the law to:

sell a banned dog
abandon a banned dog
give away a banned dog
breed from a banned dog

Whether your dog is a banned type depends on what it looks like, rather than its breed or name.

You can find more information about banned dogs here.

If you think someone has or is breeding banned dogs, please report it to us, either online or by calling 101.

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]

Yours sincerely,

[Name Removed]