FOI 0461-2024/25- Police dogs
Request:
Q1. How many serving police dogs do you currently have?
Q2. How many police dog handlers do you currently have?
Q3. How many police dog trainers do you currently have?
Q4. Please confirm the gender split of female and male police dog handlers?
Q5. Please confirm number of police dogs in your force which have died or been euthanised while still enrolled as a police dog (please include cause of death for each dog) from January 2020 until present.
Q6. How many police dogs have retired from the force since January 2020 until present day? Please include reason for retirement.
Q7. How many police dogs have been euthanised as they’re deemed unsuitable for retirement since January 2020 until present day?
Q8. How many police dogs have failed their initial training course, and subsequently been re-homed or euthanised since January 2020 until present day?
Q9. What is the yearly expenditure for all police dogs?
Q10. Do your police dog handlers undertake canine first aid training? If so, how often are they provided a refresher course?
Q11. Are your police dogs supplied with personal protective equipment? If so, please state the equipment provided, brand of the equipment and confirm if it’s personal issue to each serving police dog?
Q12. Are your police dogs provided with a direct financial assistance in their retirement from your police force or police crime commissioner?
Q13. How many suspects have been arrested by your force under ‘Finn’s Law’ aka The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) for causing unnecessary suffering to a service animal since 8th June 2019 until present day?
Q14. How many suspects have been charged by your force under ‘Finn’s Law’ aka The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) for causing unnecessary suffering to a service animal since 8th June 2019 until present day?
Q15. How many suspects have been convicted by your force under ‘Finn’s Law’ aka The Animal Welfare (Service Animals) for causing unnecessary suffering to a service animal since 8th June 2019 until present day?
Response:
Extent and Result of Searches to Locate Information
To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within North Yorkshire Police. I can confirm that the information you have requested is held by North Yorkshire Police.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you.
Q1 – Q4. I am exempting this information pursuant to Section 31 - Law enforcement. Please see the exemption explanation below.
Q5. 1 euthanised due to injuries received during an RTC on duty.
Q6. Due to records only dating back 3 years information relates to 2021 onwards. 6 retired since March 2021, 4 due to age, 1 due to not being efficient at their role, 1 due to allergies.
Q7. Zero
Q8. One – rehomed
Q9. On average we pay approx. £3k a dog but this changes on a yearly basis depending on how many we need.
Q10. No
Q11. No
Q12. No
Q13. 32 arrests made since 8th June 2019 for cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.
Q14. 3 charged outcomes since 8th June 2019 for cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.
Q15. 3 convictions since 8th June 2019 for cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.
I am exempting any other information to this question pursuant to section 30 (Investigations). Please see the explanation below.
Exemption Explanation
Section 31 – Law Enforcement
Section 31 is a prejudice-based qualified exemption and there is a requirement to articulate the harm as well as carrying out a public interest test.
Section 30 - Investigations
Section 30 is a qualified, class-based exemption, which requires that I conduct a public interest test to balance the legitimate interests of the public in knowing the information against the interests of non-disclosure.
Evidence of Harm
As you may be aware, disclosure under FOIA is a release to the public at large. Whilst not questioning the motives of the applicant, releasing any information held regarding the number of dog handlers and the number of serving police dogs, it would allow criminals to note what capacity and tactical capabilities the force had, allowing them to target specific areas of the UK to conduct their criminal/terrorist activities. This would lead to an increase in harm of attacks and compromise Law Enforcement. This would be to the detriment of providing an efficient policing service and a failure in providing a duty of care to all members of the public.
Furthermore, the Police are there to support the public and deliver effective law enforcement. Releasing the number of dog handlers and the number of serving police dogs could provide intelligence when read in conjunction with other data in the public domain into what the vehicles were used for and how many remain across the force. This information could then be used by criminals and allow them to target specific vehicles or avoid vehicles to prevent them for being detected.
The threat from terrorism cannot be ignored. It is generally recognised that the international security landscape is increasingly complex and unpredictable. Releasing information on the number of dog handlers and the number of serving police dogs would hinder operational capabilities as criminals/terrorists would gain a greater understanding of the police’s resources, enabling them to take steps to counter them. It may also suggest the limitations of police capabilities in across the county, which may further encourage criminal/terrorist activity by exposing potential vulnerabilities. This detrimental effect is increased if the request is made to several different law enforcement bodies.
Information that undermines the operational integrity of the police will adversely affect public safety and have a negative impact on both national security and law enforcement.
Factors favouring disclosure under Section 31
Releasing information held relating to the number of dog handlers and the number of serving police dogs would provide an insight into the police resources and enable the public to have a better understanding of the effectiveness of the police.
It would show how public funds are being spent in relation to protecting the public.
Information would ensure transparency and accountability and enable the public to see what tactics are deployed by the Police Service to tackle/assist in fighting crime.
Factors favouring disclosure under Section 30
Better awareness may reduce crime
The public have an interest in understanding how the police investigate crime.
There is legitimate public interest in knowing how public funds are spent.
Factors against disclosure under Section 31
It has been recorded that FOIA releases are monitored by criminals and terrorists and so releasing information held relating to the number of dog handlers and the number of serving police dogs would undermine and compromise law enforcement and it would also hinder any local, regional or national operations.
It can be argued that there are significant risks associated with providing information in relation to any aspects that can assist criminal planning and that any nation’s security arrangements, by releasing the information, may reveal the relative vulnerability of what we may be trying to protect.
The Police Service would not wish to reveal resource information that would undermine the law enforcement operations and would impact on police resources, as more crime would be committed because criminals/terrorists would know which forces had less/more capability. This in turn would place the public at a greater risk and a fear of crime would be realised, especially for more vulnerable areas.
Factors against disclosure under Section 30
Law enforcement tactics would be compromised.
The force’s future law enforcement capabilities would be affected.
Disclosure could hinder the prevention and detection and crime, as any offenders could potentially take measure to avoid detection.
Balance test
The security of the public and the country is of paramount importance and the Police service will not divulge the resources, if to do so would place the safety of individuals at risk, due to providing freely available (single point) information under such requests and which in turn would undermine National Security or compromise law enforcement.
Whilst there is a public interest in the transparency of policing resources and providing assurance that the police service is appropriately prepared and effectively engaging with the threat posed by various groups or individuals, there is a very strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of police resources and operations in the highly sensitive areas such as extremism, crime prevention, public disorder and terrorism prevention.
As much as there is public interest in knowing that policing activity is appropriate and balanced this will only be overridden in exceptional circumstances. It is our opinion that for these issues the balancing test for exempting your request for the number of dog handlers and the number of serving police dogs is not made out.
After considering the reasons for and against disclosure, it is my opinion that the reasons for non-disclosure outweigh the reasons for disclosure.
Pursuant to Section 17(1) of the Act this letter acts as a Refusal Notice in response to part of your request.
Please note that systems used for recording information are not generic, nor are the procedures used locally in capturing the data. It should be noted therefore that this force’s response to your questions should not be used for comparison purposes with any other responses you may receive.