The lady who obtained the canine chew described the canine as being ‘completely uncontrolled’
A police canine which bit a lady whereas breaking apart a rave close to Bristol can’t be named, a tribunal has dominated. The choice ends a two-year lengthy battle to disclose the canine’s identify, its information and whether or not its handler commanded the canine to chew the lady’s leg.
Jessica Mae Andrew was left needing surgical procedure after attending a Halloween rave in Yate in 2020, when police broke up the lockdown-breaking occasion with power. A police canine mauled her leg whereas she danced and he or she stated on the time that it had left “a gaping gap in my calf larger than my fist”.
Because the assault, Avon and Somerset Police have confronted dogged questions over why the incident was allowed to occur, disproportionate power and what coaching and {qualifications} the canine’s handler had obtained. However the brand new ruling leaves many questions unanswered. The First Tier Tribunal (Info Rights) has now dismissed an attraction asking for the police to launch the info as a freedom of knowledge request, as naming the canine might additionally reveal the identify of its handler, which is exempt underneath freedom of knowledge legislation.
Edward Williams initially made the liberty of knowledge request to Avon and Somerset Police in November 2020, a couple of weeks after the canine chew occured. He requested the police power to disclose the names of the canine and its handler; the canine’s police information; and the handler’s coaching document and {qualifications}.
He additionally requested the police whether or not the handler commanded the canine to assault Ms Andrew, and why the canine attacked her. However the service refused to disclose the data, attributable to exemptions about private info and ongoing investigations.
Exhausting each avenue, Mr Williams requested the police for an inside assessment into its dealing with of the liberty of knowledge request. When this was not forthcoming, he appealed to the Info Commissioner, which acts as a nationwide regulator for knowledge requests. When this knowledge was nonetheless not printed, he appealed to the First Tier Tribunal (Info Rights).
Anthony Snelson, choose of the First Tier Tribunal stated: “There isn’t any room for any doubt that these are all requests for private knowledge of the canine handler. It’s not in query that identification of the canine would inevitably reveal his or her handler; likewise, identification of the canine’s information.”
Tons of of individuals attended the Halloweeen rave at a warehouse in Beeches Industrial Property, and not less than a dozen had been convicted. Police stated they confronted “important hostility” when breaking apart the rave.
Ms Andrew was given first assist and brought to hospital. An Avon and Somerset Police spokesperson beforehand stated: “The investigation into the criticism concluded there was no indication the canine handler behaved in a fashion requiring disciplinary motion or particular person coaching. Any damage sustained throughout police contact is regrettable. An apology was made to the complainant for the damage she sustained.”
After the incident occurred, Ms Andrew instructed the Unbiased: “I used to be dancing after I was attacked with no warning in any respect. The canine got here out of nowhere, grabbed me by the thigh and pulled me to the ground. The canine was completely uncontrolled, it was traumatising. It felt prefer it was on me for round three to 4 minutes. An assault canine is a horrific weapon.”
