Leave this site
We use some essential cookies to make our website work. We’d like to set additional cookies so we can remember your preferences and understand how you use our site.
You can manage your preferences and cookie settings at any time by clicking on “Customise Cookies” below. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Cookies notice.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Your cookie preferences have been saved. You can update your cookie settings at any time on the cookies page.
Sorry, there was a technical problem. Please try again.
This site is a beta, which means it's a work in progress and we'll be adding more to it over the next few weeks. Your feedback helps us make things better, so please let us know what you think.
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST REFERENCE NO: 219749
I write in connection with your request for information which was received on 3RD January 2023 and your additional request for information on 10th January 2023. Please find below the response to your request:
I’d like to request additional information.
Can you supply information or data breakdowns regarding the relationship between the victim(s) of the attack and the owner of the dog in question? E.g. family member / sibling / stranger?
Please contact me to advise further if the information is recorded in a particular way that requires me to alter my request.
If this is possible, I’d like the information for the years: 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. I have already requested the total numbers of attacks under code 008/21, I am now seeking further information about these attacks, if it is available and accessible within the parameters of the FOI act.
I would like to know the number of dog related offences for the calendar year 2022, under the code 008/21.
Reply
Section 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 places two duties on public authorities. Unless exemptions apply, the first duty at section 1 (1) (a) is to confirm or deny whether the information specified in a request is held. The second duty at section 1(1) (b) is to disclose information that has been confirmed as being held.
In respect of the first duty at section 1 (1) (a) I can confirm that West Mercia Police does hold information in respect of your request;
Can you supply information or data breakdowns regarding the relationship between the victim(s) of the attack and the owner of the dog in question? E.g. family member / sibling / stranger?
Please contact me to advise further if the information is recorded in a particular way that requires me to alter my request.
If this is possible, I’d like the information for the years: 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. I have already requested the total numbers of attacks under code 008/21, I am now seeking further information about these attacks, if it is available and accessible within the parameters of the FOI act.
I would like to know the number of dog related offences for the calendar year 2022, under the code 008/21.
In respect of the second duty at section 1(1) (b) please see below;
|
FOI 219749 2023 - Number of dog related offences (Home Office code 008/21) recorded in West Mercia from 1/1/2022 to 31/12/2022. |
||||||
|
Year |
Number of offences (008/21) |
|||||
|
2018 |
443 |
|||||
|
2019 |
507 |
|||||
|
2020 |
466 |
|||||
|
2021 |
508 |
|||||
|
2022 |
607 |
|||||
|
Grand Total |
2,531 |
|||||
|
Relationship of dog owner to the victim |
Year |
Grand Total |
||||
|
2018 |
2019 |
2020 |
2021 |
2022 |
||
|
APPROPRIATE ADULT |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
ASSOCIATE |
13 |
13 |
8 |
13 |
17 |
64 |
|
AUNT |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
7 |
|
BROTHER |
|
|
1 |
2 |
2 |
5 |
|
BROTHER IN LAW |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
CARER |
1 |
1 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
CO-HABITEE |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
COLLEAGUE / WORK |
1 |
|
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
|
COUSIN |
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
|
CUSTOMER |
3 |
3 |
7 |
7 |
6 |
26 |
|
DAUGHTER |
|
1 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
|
DOCTOR / MEDICAL |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
EMPLOYER |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
EX PARTNER |
1 |
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
5 |
|
FATHER |
6 |
1 |
10 |
9 |
11 |
37 |
|
FOSTER PARENT |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
FRIEND |
6 |
7 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
34 |
|
GRANDCHILD |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
GRANDPARENT |
2 |
3 |
7 |
6 |
3 |
21 |
|
GREAT GRANDPARENT |
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
LANDLORD |
|
|
|
|
1 |
1 |
|
MOTHER |
7 |
5 |
13 |
10 |
11 |
46 |
|
MOTHER IN LAW |
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
NEIGHBOUR |
25 |
42 |
27 |
39 |
39 |
172 |
|
NEPHEW |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
NIECE |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
PARTNER |
2 |
3 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
17 |
|
PATIENT |
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
2 |
|
RELATIONSHIP UNKNOWN |
156 |
160 |
149 |
172 |
192 |
829 |
|
RELATIVE – OTHER |
|
|
|
2 |
|
2 |
|
SON |
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
2 |
|
SON IN LAW |
|
|
2 |
|
|
2 |
|
STEP PARENT |
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
|
STRANGER |
47 |
54 |
51 |
53 |
43 |
248 |
|
TEACHER |
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
|
UNCLE |
2 |
|
1 |
3 |
|
6 |
|
VICTIM IS CROWN |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
Relationship not recorded |
156 |
199 |
173 |
165 |
255 |
948 |
|
Grand Total |
433 |
503 |
465 |
506 |
601 |
2,508 |
As there are very few mandatory fields within the crime recording system, it should be noted that not all offences have these fields populated. Hence, the discrepancy between the total number of offences recorded (Table 1) and the total number of relationships recorded (Table 2).