Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee Inquiry:

Dangerous Dogs: Breed Specific Legislation

Written Evidence from the National Police Chief’s Council

I am grateful for the opportunity to provide a submission to the EFRA Select Committee’s Inquiry into Dangerous Dogs: Breed Specific Legislation. I write as the National Police Chief Council (NPCC) Lead on Dangerous Dogs and Companion Animals. The issue of dangerous dogs has been of significant concern / discussion for many years and the level of deaths and serious injuries being sustained namely; 31 since 2005 is very significant. 

The NPCC National Police Dangerous Dog Working Group is made up from representatives from Police Forces in England and Wales. Over recent years we have:

1.     Professionalised and standardised national Dog Legislation Officer training gaining accreditation from the College of Policing;

2.     Provided a support network for practitioners including continual professional development and training for Officers nationally;

3.     Disseminated best practice to Police Officers across England and Wales with the introduction of impact statements to assist in decision making and sentencing;

4.     Following introduction of the 2014 amendments worked in partnership with the Guide Dogs Association to deliver a national Service Level Agreement with regards to investigation of attacks on Guide Dogs;

5.     Improved the kennelling arrangements for seized dogs by providing for a forum for Forces to bring particularly difficult cases where best practice can be offered and shared;

6.     Championed the use of LEAD (Local Environmental Awareness on Dogs) a police designed and led scheme which is to support early intervention and education for nuisance dogs before they become a problem - now in use in several forces;

7.     We are currently working with the Royal Mail and Communication Workers Union to develop a Service Level Agreement for the investigation of dog attacks on postal workers which has been piloted in a number of forces;

Below is the NPCC response to the questions posed by the committee; 

1. How effective is the Government’s current approach to protecting the public from dangerous dog attacks?

The changes / additions previously made to the Dangerous Dogs Act (DDA) 1991 have been welcomed by Police Forces in England and Wales and have improved the safety of the public. S3 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 provides enforcement for dogs of any breed which are dangerously out of control in any place. Recent powers available through the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 also provide an educational approach and early intervention to enforcement through non-statutory warning letters and Statutory Community Protection Notices.

S1 of the Act, by contrast, is a prohibitive power which seeks to restrict ownership of certain types of dogs deemed to be dangerous to the general public. Dogs which are of a good temperament and owners who are deemed by the court to be fit and proper are permitted to keep the dog subject to compliance with statutory conditions. In the UK the Pit Bull Terrier type dog is the most commonly seen of the four prohibited types accounting for over 99% of the Index of Exempted Dogs which come to Police notice. In the last 12 months an increasing number of Dogo Argentinos have come to Police in London, West Midlands and Merseyside. 

The dogs specified were historically bred for dog fighting and as such their physical characteristics could result in them inflicting more serious or fatal injuries. Indeed fighting breeds have been selected to inflict maximum damage on their opponents by sustained grabbing, holding, shaking and tearing. [1] Several studies suggest that the bite rate for pit bulls is significantly higher than for other breeds. [2] Research from the United States also suggest that “injuries inflicted by Pit Bulls in the cases studied are noticeably different from the injuries inflicted in fatal attacks by other breeds.”[3]

Pit Bull Terriers along with other functional large bull breed dogs are disproportionately represented within fatal dog bite statistics across England and Wales. Police have recorded 31 fatalities since 2005 and note that there in an increasing frequency in the number of fatalities seen. Of concern is the age of victims of fatal attacks – 15 of the 31 deaths involved children under 5 years.[4]

Of the fatalities involving Pit Bull Terriers, none of those dogs had previously been exempted and placed onto the Index of Exempted Dogs, correspondingly with the exception of the provision of insurance few Pit Bull Terriers which are registered on the Index of Exempted Dogs come back to Police notice once exempted.

When assessing the effectiveness of the legislation it is critical to ensure this is linked not just to dog bites but also dog fighting. Between 1976 when the first known Pit Bull Terriers were imported into the UK and prior to the 1991 Act, Pit Bull Terriers were common place in most inner cities and the prevalence dog fighting considerably greater than is the case today. The original Pit Bull Terriers brought to the UK were from fighting lines in the United States and had 15 years of intense breeding and circulation prior to any such controls being applied by S1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Just prior to the 1991 Act the RSPCA Harmsworth Memorial Hospital were consistently recording and treating dogs from 2 or 3 fights per day.[5] These were organised professional dog fights or informal events and were common place as owners jostled for status with their dogs. When the Act came in the practice of breeding went underground, owners who were proud to talk and show their dog before ripped up their pedigree certificates and tried to pass their dogs off as Staffordshire Bull Terriers.

By 2007 the number of individuals taken to court in London for dangerous dog offences increased by 50% compared to the previous year. Many owners were being prosecuted for causing neglect by delaying treatment for their dog following organised fights. [6]

In 2009 Seyi Ogunyemi was murdered in South London by a rival gang who first set 2 Pit Bull Terrier dogs upon the victim before stabbing him to death. During that attack the dog was still attacking the victims leg during the stabbing, demonstrating the tenacity and gameness of the breed. [7] 

In 2015-2016 the Metropolitan Police Service produced a table of dog breeds involved in dog attacks across London. This showed that in the 468 cases reported to Police during that year where a dangerously out of control offence was disclosed and a dog subsequently seized, that a Pit Bull Terrier was the lead offending dog (92 offences (19.3%)), followed by a Staffordshire Bull Terrier (84 offences (17.6%)) and other Bull Breed  in (74 offences (15.5%)). See Appendix

1.

The position today is less overt and obvious but Police Forces continue to report dogs being used as status symbols, connected to gang related activity and used to frustrate in particular search operations against gangs and organised criminals. As a natural consequence of changing behaviours Police are for the first time noting a reduction on the number of Pit Bull Terriers coming to notice. There is also evidence that traditional fighting dog lines have been diluted to the degree that Officers are upon assessment not ‘typing’ as many dogs as they once did and are seeing many ‘near’ Pit Bull type dogs which do not meet the required standard to fall within the definition of S1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act. 

Additional evidence from forces suggests that because of the attention that owning a prohibited dog attracts, there is a move towards other large functional breeds such as American Bulldogs, American Bullys, Alapaha Bulldogs and in some cases Caucasian Shepherds. We continue to see such dogs being bred with increasing frequency and traded as commodities as Pit Bulls once were. With such large numbers of functional stock readily available we believe they will continue to rise in number and with the UK population not used to handling such dogs see no evidence that the numbers of serious and fatal dog attacks will naturally reduce without continued intervention. 

It could be argued that many other breeds have the same or similar characteristics and pose a similar threat to public safety. There have been 12 fatalities as a result of large functional bull breed dogs since 2014 compared with 3 fatalities involving the combined total of all other dog breeds and the law on dangerous dogs should remain focused on safeguarding the public, prioritised on those dogs which are likely to or capable of causing the most harm.

2. What changes, if any, should be made to the current approach and legislation?

The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 has a number of areas where it could be improved however; I believe the legislation is essential to keeping the public safe. I recognise that there are strong feelings on both sides of the debate with regards to dog control and note that the topic has been subject to numerous petitions to the Government in recent years.

As Chair of the National Police Dangerous Dog Working Group and NPCC Lead I have committed to participating in a recently awarded DEFRA research project examining dog control measures. This research is extremely important in looking strategically as to how dog control could be improved and options developed in the future to improve the situation. 

There are disparities in the current provision when comparing powers available in cases such as those available under the Dogs Act 1871, Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1957, and Dangerous Dogs Acts of 1989 and 1991. Forces are reporting an increase in offences of dangerously out of control and worrying livestock in particular. The number of S1 dogs coming to notice appears to be reducing. It is unclear whether this is due to changes in the private place amendment made as part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 or increases in reporting in general. I would therefore welcome a review of the legislation and in particular consolidation and standardisation of dog control measures.

I do not believe that S1 Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 should be repealed and strongly believe in effective dog control measures. I support consideration of alternative disposal options but would also invite the committee to consider whether the current measures go far enough in terms of dogs subject to preventative control measures given the above evidence in terms of large functional bull breed dogs present in society at large.

Policing the Dangerous Dogs Act is an expensive activity. It is estimated that the kenneling of dogs alone cost the Police Service across England and Wales circa £4m annually. There are just over 100 specialist Dog Legislation Officers across England and Wales and every Force has access to a specially trained Officer.

For the majority of forces their Dog Legislation Officer is also a working Dog Handler, balancing operational Policing and crime with the needs of ensuring public safety by enforcing the Dangerous Dogs Act.

One of the on-going requirements is to satisfy the Index of Exempted Dogs that there is in force a certificate of insurance in place for the dog on an annual basis. If the owner fails to notify the Index of renewed insurance provision the process for resolution requires the owner to be prosecuted and brought back before the court for a new exemption certificate to be considered. The ability to resolve these cases by means of Fixed Penalty Notice rather than have to seize the dog and take every case back to the Court where the Justices often do not see this as a serious matter would be welcomed. This would be particularly sensible for cases where this came about by way of an administrative error as opposed to a deliberate attempt to circumvent the statutory controls or where aggravating features applied. Consideration could also be given to pass the responsibility for notifying insurance renewals to the Index back to the insurance company rather than the dog owner. This would reduce the administrative burden on both the Index of Exempted Dogs and the Police who spend considerable time following up on whether a person has renewed their policy. An insurance policy can cost as little as £26 pounds per year and the additional administrative burden on the provider passed on at a nominal cost increase to the dog owner. It is not good use of police resources to have dog handlers who are a very expensive resource following up on insurance renewals when the Courts often have a very relaxed approach to this breach. There appears little value in the insurance condition of the index and I would invite the Committee to consider how the Index should be managed effectively in the future. 

There are presently gaps in the legislation with regards to enforcing breach of a contingent destruction order issued under S4(4)(a) Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and I feel that this needs to be made an offence with the associated powers of seizure enabled. Presently a dog / owner who breaches court ordered conditions have to be dealt with by a civil complaint rather than a criminal offence.

There is a good example of partnership working in London between the Metropolitan Police Service and Crown Prosecution Service who run a dedicated dangerous dog and animal welfare court. The programme has been very successful and there are early discussions underway in the West Midlands to mirror a similar scheme. The benefits of more consistent case management, reduced time dogs spend in kennels, reduction in kennel costs incurred by the Police Service, more effective trials and an increase in guilty pleas are all welcome results of that particular scheme.

It is however, not possible to replicate this scheme across the Country and so I would call for dog cases to be given greater priority in Courts particularly where a dog is held in kennels at public expense. A number of forces are reporting ongoing Dangerous Dogs Act cases which have taken in excess of 18 months to date and I would support statutory time scales being placed on court proceedings to ensure speedy access to and conclusion of judicial proceedings.

One option for consideration is for use of alternative disposal methods. In recent years we have seen a growth in the types of offences where the offender does not go to Court but receives an educational input. Some of the current examples are; speed offences being dealt with by way of driver awareness sessions, drug/alcohol offences having specific support programmes.  

Owning a dog is a privilege and requires the appropriate skills. In order to improve dog control there may be options to divert some offences of poor dog control into specific training courses to stop the offender going to Court. On completion of the course to a satisfactory standard the offender would gain new skills to benefit the animal, its welfare and the wider community. 

3.     How can local authorities and police forces be best supported in reducing the number of dangerous dog-related incidents?

Local Authorities (LA) are in a similar position to the Police Service where they have seen a significant reduction to their budgets and Dog Warden services across the country have been curtailed. These reductions have led to a large amount of the preventative work which was undertaken by LA’s being reduced or stopped altogether. In many areas the Dog Warden service now only consists of a statutory stray dog service. This gap has created additional work for the Police Service who already have stretched resources. Whilst definitive arrangements are a matter for local partnerships Police have assumed responsibility for the public safety elements of the Dangerous Dogs Act i.e. Prohibited Types and Dangerously Out of Control where an injury is caused with other cases (nonaggravated) referred to the LA. Consequently the role of the Dog Warden service and how it interacts with Policing should be reviewed to clarify responsibilities for inter-agency working but also manage expectations for the public.

Research from the United States indicates that a dogs pre-disposition to bite is the sum of at least five characteristics: The dogs genetic pre-disposition, early socialisation, quality of care and supervision and the behaviour of the victim. The study identified a common theme that the owner had not taken the appropriate steps to prevent his or her animal from becoming a problem.[8] I welcome the updated Codes of Practice for Canine Welfare published by DEFRA in April 2018 but feel that there is much to be done to promote this message and instill good practice to the public at large. I would welcome a wide ranging education programme for children and dog owners alike.

I would also welcome a more holistic approach to dog control measures involving not just the Police and Local Authorities but also those from Veterinary professionals, Dog Trainers and the Charity sector. With regards to the Veterinary sector the Metropolitan Police advise that around 33% of Pit Bull Terriers who come to notice are said to be registered with a Veterinary Surgeon, yet only 3 dogs have been referred to them by vets in the last 4 years. All of the dogs referred were subsequently quickly exempted because the owners engaged with authorities and asked for help to take the dog through the exemption process.

I would also welcome statutory regulations with respect to the re-homing of dogs, especially dogs of a difficult disposition. There is great disparity across the industry with regards to due diligence applied when placing a dog with a new home. In 2016 a recently rehomed dog (large functional bull breed dog) was involved in a fatal dog attack on a 3 year old child in Essex.[9]

4.     What lessons could the UK learn from other countries dealing with similar issues?

It’s difficult to say that one country has a definitive answer to dog issues. There are a number strands of work being undertaken in other countries i.e. Canada, United States of America, Australia and the Netherlands however, the NPCC do not have enough information or understanding of the working practices to comment.

I hope this submission is of use and I am happy to address any specific concerns or provide any additional information that would assist your inquiry. 

Gareth Pritchard

Deputy Chief Constable

North Wales Police

NPCC Lead for Dangerous Dogs and Companion Animals

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

References:

1.     Are Pit Bulls Different? Lockwood and Rindy

2.     Pickney and Kennedy 1982; Multani and Clifford 1985; Wright (1985)

3.     Are Pit Bulls Different? Lockwood and Rindy

4.     Individual case names retained by Police - England and Wales only

5.     David Grant, Director, RSPCA Harmsworth Hospital - Unleashed, Simon Harding, 2014

6.     MOPAC (Mayors Office for Policing and Crime) Weapon Dogs 2009

7.     HHJ Moss QC – R v C Johnson & S Johnson, Old Bailey

8.     Are Pit Bulls Different? Lockwood and Rindy

9.     Case of Dexter NEAL, 18/06/2016, Halstead, Essex

Appendix 1: Metropolitan Police Cases – Concluded FY 2015-2016 – S3 Breed Types

S3 DDA 1991 - Cases Completed FY

15/16

              Breed / Type               Count               %

PBT               92               19.3

SBT               84               17.6

Bull Breed X               74               15.5

GSD               41               8.6

Mastiff               32               6.7

Akita               18               3.8

Am Bulldog               18               3.8

Rotti               16               3.4

Mongrel               15               3.2

Collie               7               1.5

English Bull Terrier               7               1.5

Husky               7               1.5

Doberman               5               1.1

Jack Russell               5               1.1

Bulldog               4               0.8

Malinois               4               0.8

Boxer               3               0.6

Dogue De Bordeaux               3               0.6

Ridgeback               3               0.6

Sharpei               3               0.6

Weimeraner               3               0.6

Greyhound               2               0.4

Labrador               2               0.4

Malamute               2               0.4

Anatolian Sheep Dog               1               0.2

Bassett Hound               1               0.2

Bermese Mountain Dog               1               0.2

Bull Breed Mix               1               0.2

Chow               1               0.2

468

Page 10 of 10