Police response investigated after banned dog breed injures two people – Greater Manchester Police, March 2024

In March 2024, Greater Manchester Police received intelligence about an unregistered XL Bully dog at an address. In February 2024, the XL Bully had been added as a banned breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. The dog had not been added to the exemption list. 

The report log was updated, and a team was identified to take ownership, with a police sergeant allocated a task relating to the dog. No updates were added to the intelligence log after this. 

Three weeks later, a postman contacted the police to report a dog had bitten him during his round. The postman required treatment at hospital for his injuries. 

The postman did not want to support a prosecution but did want the police to speak to the owner of the dog about what had happened, reporting that there were young children at the address.

An officer was allocated as the investigating officer on the crime report. The officer visited the address and spoke to the woman living there on the phone. They did not see any evidence of a dog at the property, and they accepted the woman’s account that a stray dog had run off. The case was closed. 

Nearly three weeks after this, Northwest Ambulance Service contacted the police to report a young child had been attacked by a dog at the same address. The call was graded as requiring an immediate response. The child sustained more than 20 puncture marks to their body.

An entry made on the incident log referred to previous intelligence relating to the address and an unregistered dog. 

The police arrested two people on suspicion of a dog being dangerously out of control.

We received a death or serious injury referral from the force and decided to independently investigate the actions and decisions of the police after receiving intelligence that an un-registered dog was at the address. 

We considered whether the police could have acted sooner on this information given the recent change in the law, the actions and decisions they made following the dog bite reported by the postman, and whether the actions of the police were line with force and national policy around dog-related incidents.

We also examined the nature and extent of police contact with the child before they were seriously injured, and whether the police may have caused or contributed to their injuries. 

Our investigators interviewed two officers, who did not provide written responses or prepared statements. Both officers gave answers to our questions in interview. We also obtained statements from witnesses, and from a dog legislation officer (DLO) after they had carried out an assessment of the dog. The DLO confirmed the dog had characteristics of the XL Bully type and had not been added to the exemption list. 

We reviewed intelligence reports, incident logs, and relevant legislation, policies and procedures. 

We concluded there was no indication that a person serving with the police committed a criminal offence or behaved in a manner to justify disciplinary proceedings. 

We found that officers took some positive action when they were allocated the incident, including visiting the address where the dog was reported to be, and speaking with the woman at the address on the phone. However, their actions in other areas fell short of the expectations of the public and police service, and we recommended that two officers would benefit from the reflective practice review process (RPRP). This process allows officers to learn from and reflect on what could have been done better. 

We recommended that both officers complete further/refresher training on the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and force policy. 

We also recommended that one officer develop a better understanding of the use of DLOs for support and assistance in dog related incidents and the importance of considering/verifying relevant intelligence. It could be argued that a cold call without warning to the address had the dog been present at that time could have led to a very different outcome.

The other officer was asked to reflect on the process when an intelligence report is received and what course of action should be taken, including reviewing task allocation. 

We carefully considered whether there were any learning opportunities arising from the investigation. We make learning recommendations to improve policing and public confidence in the police complaints system and prevent a recurrence of similar incidents. 

We are considering learning around dealing with intelligence and incidents relating to suspected banned dog breeds and will publish any recommendations we may make.