Dog Attack! - Apparently not.

[thirdcrank]

Since I last posted, I've remembered that there have for longer than I can remember, been arrangements for the prosecution of police officers to be considered externally. Before the CPS, prosecution files had to be submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) That was in the days when the DPP's office was relatively small, not the HQ of the CPS that it is today. eg This meant that following any road accident involving a police vehicle a "DPP file" was submitted, even if the other party was clearly at fault. I've submitted my fair share. AFAIK, the responsibility for this external review is now with a senior CPS official. It's intended to ensure that an appropriate policy is adopted ie neither lenient nor oppressive. Regarding arrests, which as I've said are not necessary for a prosecution, I believe that the IOPC and before that the IPCC have their own arrangements for interviewing police officers. That's also not to say that an immediate arrest would never happen eg to prevent further offences or a suspect absconding.

I presume that the Home Office has a general policy on the use by police of dogs. AFAIK, their main purpose is to be trained to tackle armed suspects without understanding they may be shot in the process. I'm not suggesting

[slowster]

The expectation that the police officer should have been cautioned/charged, because that is what would/might happen if it were a civilian's dog is disingenuous. The dog was a working dog, not the officer's pet, and the officer was required to keep, train and deploy him in the performance of his role as a police dog handler, and that would include releasing the dog to chase down suspects, when the dog would be trained to detain the suspect by using its jaws to bite/grasp the suspect's arm.

Obviously dogs that are required to fulfil that role must be trained to a high standard and must be reliable, i.e. they must behave as they are trained to do and obey the commands of their handlers.

If the handler were found to have been deficient in the dog's training and/or knew that the dog was not sufficiently reliable, then there would certainly be a case to answer. It's possible the handler might have reported to his superior(s) that he was not happy with the dog's behaviour and obedience - unlike a pet the handler does not have a choice about whether to work with the dog: it's his job and the dog is assigned to him by the force.

There is presumably a procedure and criteria for an unreliable dog to be withdrawn from service, and clearly one of the problems in this case was that the force and the handler did not know the dog's history of poor behaviour. If they had, the force might never have bought the dog. Even if it would still have bought the dog, knowledge of the past behaviour would probably have made the handler much more likely to view any signs of bad behaviour under his control as indicating that the dog could not be trusted, and advising his superiors accordingly that the dog should be withdrawn from service, rather than believing that this was something which should be dealt with by further and continuing training.

[thirdcrank]

slowster

Thanks for that analysis, which gives some background to this dreadful incident.
=============================================================
I think it's worth mentioning that the training of police dogs is continuous. I can't remember the details, which might have changed anyway, but it's something like an hour every day and dog handlers receive (or did in my day) an allowance for undertaking this work on days off in addition to training during the working day. That training presumably can only cover things involving an obedient and effective response to the handler's commands. It's hard to see how the training could test a dog's response to all distractions.

[pete75]

The expectation that the police officer should have been cautioned/charged, because that is what would/might happen if it were a civilian's dog is disingenuous. The dog was a working dog, not the officer's pet, and the officer was required to keep, train and deploy him in the performance of his role as a police dog handler, and that would include releasing the dog to chase down suspects, when the dog would be trained to detain the suspect by using its jaws to bite/grasp the suspect's arm.

Obviously dogs that are required to fulfil that role must be trained to a high standard and must be reliable, i.e. they must behave as they are trained to do and obey the commands of their handlers.

If the handler were found to have been deficient in the dog's training and/or knew that the dog was not sufficiently reliable, then there would certainly be a case to answer. It's possible the handler might have reported to his superior(s) that he was not happy with the dog's behaviour and obedience - unlike a pet the handler does not have a choice about whether to work with the dog: it's his job and the dog is assigned to him by the force.

There is presumably a procedure and criteria for an unreliable dog to be withdrawn from service, and clearly one of the problems in this case was that the force and the handler did not know the dog's history of poor behaviour. If they had, the force might never have bought the dog. Even if it would still have bought the dog, knowledge of the past behaviour would probably have made the handler much more likely to view any signs of bad behaviour under his control as indicating that the dog could not be trusted, and advising his superiors accordingly that the dog should be withdrawn from service, rather than believing that this was something which should be dealt with by further and continuing training.

You may have been correct if the dog had only attacked this lady once. The reports say that the handler managed to pull the dog off her. It then escaped from him and attacked her again. This was a failure to control the dog which he knew was a danger to the woman because of the first attack.

[iandusud]

Either way someone in the police force was negligent and should therefore be accountable.

[thirdcrank]

pete75

My reason for replying to your first post was to try to deal with the innuendo about why there was no prosecution. In short, independent investigation by the IOPC and decision not to prosecute by the CPS. I appreciate you disagree with the result but I don't think there's any reason to suspect malpractice at the IOPC or CPS in this case.

[slowster]

The reports say that the handler managed to pull the dog off her. It then escaped from him and attacked her again. This was a failure to control the dog which he knew was a danger to the woman because of the first attack.

I'm not sure that the reports give enough detail to be able to make a judgement about whether the officer was negligent in allowing the dog to escape. He might only have have been able to pull the dog by its collar off her for a matter of seconds, and so not been able to attach the dog's lead and get a firm grip of the lead, before the dog broke free again and attacked the woman for the second time. The nature of the role performed by a police dog would mean that it would be a strong and aggressive dog: if it refused to obey the commands of its handler and 'went rogue', it would probably be quite a physical struggle to pull it off and to attach the lead.

I doubt that the handler actually managed to properly regain control of the dog between the two attacks. If he had, and if there was at least one other officer present who could have looked after the woman, then logically the first thing he would have done would have been to remove the dog from the room, because it had just bitten an elderly infirm woman, and she would probably have been terrified of the dog (which was almost certainly still displaying aggressive behaviour and barking) remaining in her presence.

[pete75]

pete75

My reason for replying to your first post was to try to deal with the innuendo about why there was no prosecution. In short, independent investigation by the IOPC and decision not to prosecute by the CPS. I appreciate you disagree with the result but I don't think there's any reason to suspect malpractice at the IOPC or CPS in this case.

You may well think that, others will have a different view. The fact the CPS haven't revealed their reasons not to prosecute even to the victim's family is suspicious.

[thirdcrank]

I don't know if the bereaved's family have exercised their right to seek a review
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/v ... iew-scheme

Beyond that, I obviously cannot even begin to answer more innuendo. You don't like the decision and fair enough, but that doesn't, in itself, amount to evidence of malpractice.

[pete75]

I don't know if the bereaved's family have exercised their right to seek a review
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/v ... iew-scheme

Beyond that, I obviously cannot even begin to answer more innuendo. You don't like the decision and fair enough, but that doesn't, in itself, amount to evidence of malpractice.

It's the decision itself which stinks. Whether or not I like it is irrelevant.

[bikerwaser]

You're right to be concerned.

Over 600 people go to A&E every day in England alone, due to dog bites, some with life changing results.

I carry my own home made pepper spray.

I've used it against several dogs that have chased me on my bike in the UK, France and Spain.

I also used it on a motorist that got out of his car and threatened me after I'd pointed out that he'd close passed me within cms of my life.

[fastpedaller]

Bumping the subject up, and more importantly an update........
Since I'd heard nothing on the 3 cases (sprints) to outrun the beast I contacted the Police by email on 3rd Oct to be told the officer is back next Saturday (so 6th Oct) and they had made (yet) another case number and emailed him, so I will hear soon. Still waiting. I think I'll just leave it a couple of weeks to (maybe) increase the 'embarrassment factor' . I think they are waiting for me to either go away, or someone gets hurt. I understand it's not top of the priority list, and they lack manpower, but they have already 'wasted' at least a couple of hours with it - maybe taking action early will save them time in the long run? This scenario started last November, but (because I reported using 101) no 'action' was taken until August (when on their previous instruction I dialled 999), and nothing has been done (or I haven't been informed it has) since, despite another confrontation. I've since been avoiding the route, but don't intend to do that for ever.

[Barks]

So the dog owner is intimidating you not to use a route that suits your journey - while I agree that police resouces are stretched, continually ignoring low level crime and anti social behaviour has been proved to result in an incense in problems. If your local police do not respond adequately raise it up the leadership ladder.

[TopHat'N'Cape1888]

This is where frame fitting pumps come in handy. You can remove it whilst riding along and give the dog a sharp tap with it, that usually does the trick and the dog will desist. If not, then I agree with using the bike as a barrier.

https://www.fawkes-cycles.co.uk/2477619 ... -pump.aspx something like this would go a long way

[fastpedaller]

This is where frame fitting pumps come in handy. You can remove it whilst riding along and give the dog a sharp tap with it, that usually does the trick and the dog will desist. If not, then I agree with using the bike as a barrier.

https://www.fawkes-cycles.co.uk/2477619 ... -pump.aspx something like this would go a long way

When I first spoke with the Police about this I was told that this wasn't allowed unless I was being bitten!
I'm still awaiting an update, and when I have a bit more free time I'll contact them again and ask for an update - in a few days' time it will be a year since it first chased me!