Recommendations - Hampshire Police, June 2023

The IOPC recommends that the Hampshire & IOW Constabulary develop clear guidance concerning the seizure of animals and the investigation of offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This guidance should: (a)    identify whether this is a matter that should be led by the RSPCA or the Police; (b)    if led by the RSPCA what support the Police will give, and (c)    if led by the police, best practice, key actions to be completed during such an investigation, seeking CPS advice, and the need for appropriate review by a supervisor and/or Dog Legislation Officer.

This follows a review conducted by the IOPC into a case concerning an adult with a neurodiversity and mental health issues.  Witnesses reported that he was behaving erratically in the street and was punching his dog. He was arrested and detained and his dog was seized under the Animal Welfare Act.

The owner was not initially told that the dog had been seized but learned this later in the cells. During interview he was told he could arrange to collect the dog the next day but this was not in fact correct and the family struggled to get accurate information about what had happened to the dog, when it would be released and at one stage what if any contact was permissible with the kennels. This caused distress to the owner and his family, an alleged exacerbation of his mental health issues and considerable conflict with/ inconvenience to officers and 101 call handlers. CCTV showed the owner lifting his dog off the ground by the lead around its neck. He was subsequently charged with offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The owner was acquitted at trial and the dog was returned to him, having been in kennels for approximately 14 months.

A Dog Legislation Officer from the Joint Operations Unit reviewed the case and identified possible areas for learning and improvement. She indicated that the case was not an isolated one and noted that there had been an increase in dogs being seized, allegedly due to RSPCA resourcing issues. She identified the need to ensure that officers were using the correct powers of seizure, policies were up to date and followed and case files were reviewed in a timely fashion to ensure that dogs were not being retained without good justification.

The IOPC recommends that Hampshire & IOW Constabulary should review the training provided to officers to ensure they clearly understand their powers of seizure under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, including the procedures that should be followed when exercising such a power. This follows a review conducted by the IOPC into a case concerning an adult with a neurodiversity and mental health issues.  Witnesses reported that he was behaving erratically in the street and was punching his dog. He was arrested and detained and his dog was seized under the Animal Welfare Act.

The owner was not initially told that the dog had been seized but learned this later in the cells. During interview he was told he could arrange to collect the dog the next day but this was not in fact correct and the family struggled to get accurate information about what had happened to the dog, when it would be released and at one stage what if any contact was permissible with the kennels. This caused distress to the owner and his family, an alleged exacerbation of his mental health issues and considerable conflict with/ inconvenience to officers and 101 call handlers. CCTV showed the owner lifting his dog off the ground by the lead around its neck. He was subsequently charged with offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The owner was acquitted at trial and the dog was returned to him, having been in kennels for approximately 14 months.

A Dog Legislation Officer from the Joint Operations Unit reviewed the case and identified  possible areas for learning and improvement. She indicated that the case was not an isolated one and noted that there had been an increase in dogs being seized, allegedly due to RSPCA resourcing issues. She identified the need to ensure that officers were using the correct powers of seizure, policies were up to date and followed and case files were reviewed in a timely fashion to ensure that dogs were not being retained without good justification.

The IOPC recommends that Hampshire & IOW Constabulary re-visit the procedures currently in place for the regular review of the retention of animals held by the force, to ensure their retention is still justified. This should include consideration of whether the procedure adequately identifies: (a)    who should conduct a review; (b)     the frequency by which reviews should be completed; (c)    how reviews should be recorded; and (d)    how to ensure appropriate internal scrutiny and monitoring of reviews.

This follows a review conducted by the IOPC into a case concerning an adult with a neurodiversity and mental health issues.  Witnesses reported that he was behaving erratically in the street and was punching his dog. He was arrested and detained and his dog was seized under the Animal Welfare Act.

The owner was not initially told that the dog had been seized but learned this later in the cells. During interview he was told he could arrange to collect the dog the next day but this was not in fact correct and the family struggled to get accurate information about what had happened to the dog, when it would be released and at one stage what if any contact was permissible with the kennels. This caused distress to the owner and his family, an alleged exacerbation of his mental health issues and considerable conflict with/ inconvenience to officers and 101 call handlers. CCTV showed the owner lifting his dog off the ground by the lead around its neck. He was subsequently charged with offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The owner was acquitted at trial and the dog was returned to him, having been in kennels for approximately 14 months.

A Dog Legislation Officer from the Joint Operations Unit reviewed the case and identified  possible areas for learning and improvement. She indicated that the case was not an isolated one and noted that there had been an increase in dogs being seized, allegedly due to RSPCA resourcing issues. She identified the need to ensure that officers were using the correct powers of seizure, policies were up to date and followed and case files were reviewed in a timely fashion to ensure that dogs were not being retained without good justification.