Police drop investigation into owner of dog that attacked Freddie the Seal

Scotland Yard has announced no further action will be taken against the owner of a dog that fatally injured a seal on the banks of the River Thames.

Rebecca Sabben-Clare QC, 49, who owns the cross breed terrier which mauled the seal near Hammersmith Bridge on Sunday has apologised unreservedly.

However, following a brief investigation police and the RSPCA confirmed no laws were broken.

In a statement, Ms Sabben-Clare said she had spoken to the police and RSPCA who had confirmed no offence had been committed.

She said: “I am heartbroken by this terrible accident. As an animal lover, I fully understand the dismay that has been expressed. I apologise unreservedly for what happened.

“In hindsight I wish, of course, that the dog had been on a lead but at the time that did not seem necessary.

“I am hugely grateful to all those who helped at the scene. They were heroic. I left for my own safety and that of my dog, believing that there was nothing that I could do to help as the seal was being looked after by a vet and help had been called.

“I offered my contact details to the vet before leaving.”

However, the incident has sparked a debate about whether current legislation is sufficient to protect wildlife from dangerous pets.

Despite there being various pieces of legislation in place to ensure dogs are kept under control, there are loopholes that make it difficult to prosecute owners if they attack wild animals.

Under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, certain breeds are banned. These are the Pit Bull Terrier, Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino and Fila Brasileiro.

The dog involved in the attack on the seal is thought to be a Patterdale Terrier cross so not one of the banned breeds.

But leading vets have suggested there ought to be an overhaul of the Dangerous Dogs Act because it leads to the impression that all dogs that are not on the banned list are safe.

Daniella Dos Santos from the The British Veterinary Association told The Telegraph: “A dog’s behaviour, including how and when it displays aggression, is largely dependent on its socialisation, rearing, training and environmental circumstances.

“Any dog of any size has the capacity to be aggressive around wildlife or livestock, so education about responsible dog ownership is key to reducing these terrible cases of dog attacks we see in the headlines.

“We would encourage pet owners to keep their dog on a lead near livestock and wildlife as this would also help prevent avoidable attacks and keep the dogs safe too.

“Anyone in need of advice on dealing with pet behaviour issues, such as potentially dangerous roaming in dogs, should always speak to their vet on how to do it positively, humanely and effectively.”

“BVA has long campaigned for a total overhaul of the 1991 Dangerous Dogs Act because it targets specific breeds rather than deeds and gives a false impression that dogs not on the banned list are ‘safe’, thereby failing to properly protect the public, their pets and wildlife from attacks.

“We support robust, fit-for-purpose legislation that effectively tackles individual acts of aggression rather than banning entire breeds.”

The Dangerous Dogs Act also requires owners ensure their pets are not "dangerously out of control".

But the legislation only applies to incidents "where a person is injured or has reason to fear injury, or a person believes they’re about to be injured".

The law also protects livestock from dog attacks, but crucially does not cover wild animals. Earlier this month there was a change to conservation laws to provide more protection for seals.

Updates to the Conservation of Seals Act 1970 and the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 came into force on 1 March 2021.

The laws "prohibit the killing, injuring or taking of seals, as well as limiting the circumstances in which those activities can be permitted".

Previously, the law prohibited such activities where particular weapons or poisonous substances were used.

The new amendments provide a broader set of protections for seals, but only apply to the activities of humans and not pet dogs.

The Dogs Act 1871 does allow for action to be taken against people who fail to keep their dogs under proper control but the owner cannot be convicted or punished.

Trevor Cooper, a dog law specialist, said: “Section two of the Dogs Act 1871 could apply. There’s no reason that it can’t be used for an exceptional attack on a seal.

"If it can be shown that the dog has a dangerous character, and it wasn’t under proper control, then the police or the council could bring a case against the owner of the dog in the magistrates’ courts for an order that the dog be kept under proper control or destroyed.

"Otherwise if the dog was deliberately set on the seal then that could be an offence.

“It’s a matter for the court to decide on an individual basis if the dog has a dangerous character, disposition or propensity.

"And in theory a dog could show that by its behaviour towards a seal. It’s not a prosecution, there’s no conviction or punishment. It’s about future prevention.”

Initially, the Met Police confirmed it was investigating the incident but on Wednesday said no further action would be taken.

RSPCA had at first issued a statement which said: "What happened to Freddie the seal is heartbreaking. Dog-owners should act responsibly and keep their pets on leads around wild animals to ensure incidents like this are prevented.

"We understand how upsetting this incident was for anyone who witnessed it and we hope we can spread the message encouraging dog-owners to keep their dog on a lead if wildlife is around."

However, on Wednesday in light of the Met's announcement, the charity issued an updated statement which said: "We investigate animal welfare offences. Dog attacks on animals would become an animal welfare offence if it was done deliberately.

"If no offences have been committed under the Animal Welfare Act, we are unable to take incidents further. Offences involving dogs out of control are investigated by the police.

"In this instance, we spoke to the owner and as this was not a case of deliberate cruelty, it is not an offence we would investigate."