Nope, once seized that requires a court order.
So I bring up powers under one Act and you cite a completely different Act?
If you disagree then link to what authority the police have *once seized*. You're just making the mistake pointed out before for example the police can shoot a terrorist in the street, that doesn't mean they can just kill one they've taken into custody.
No they can't "just kill it", except in extreme circumstances... but where they believe the dog to be dangerously out of control, and that returning custody to its owner (or whoever is supposed to be in charge of it) would present an ongoing threat, there are certain people authorised to approve the destruction of the animal, as explained above.
The Police
cannot destroy the dog under Section 1 of the DDA, as that has to come from a court following an investigation into the breed of dog... But they
can do it (with the authorisation described above) under Section 4B, and if they're not intending to prosecute a person then the decision can be made within hours of the initial seizure.
Where they
are intending to prosecute a person, the dog then constitutes evidence and since a destruction order may be an outcome of the trial, the accused must be afforded the time to prepare both their defence and any appeal, so the dog can't be destroyed until the case is concluded.
'Dangerously Out Of Control' means when there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that the dog will injure any person, whether or not it does. This is regardless of whether the dog is on or off its lead.
So the fact that the dog was not only out of control, but did also cause harm, confirms the offence and makes it an aggravated offence.
The CPS guidance says, "
Section 10(3) of the 1991 Act provides that a dog shall be regarded as dangerously out of control on any occasion on which there are grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will injure any person or assistance dog, whether or not it actually does so (unless the dog was being used for a lawful purpose by a constable or person in service of the Crown). See R v PY [2019] EWCA Crim 17 for guidance on lawful purpose.
Aggressive behaviour towards a person will almost always be grounds for reasonable apprehension that it will cause injury to demonstrate that it is dangerously out of control".
So it's already bitten someone, is dangerously out of control by definition, and Police (in 2023) also know the type is about to be banned yet no prosecution of a person seems forthcoming - What about this suggests there's no grounds for destruction?
What your employer does and doesn’t allow is your companies policy, and may not have anything to do with GDPR rules.
Legal notice doesn’t have anything to do with GDPR rules either. These are all separate things.
The private individual data we use must be accurate, under GDPR - We can't serve notice using 'something we got off Facebook', any more than we can bill a bank account just because someone on Twitter says that's their details - It's not considered secure nor the data reliable.
I also understand we cannot use anything off social media, either private or publicly posted, unless the private individual first gives us permission to use it for specifically stated purposes. So while we can just use Councillor Jim Smith's work address, as it's posted on a professional directory, we can't email Mrs Miggins or post her a bill even if she put her email and home address on her Facebook page unless she gives it to us directly. We have to get that data through more official means.
