PFD report

Frankie Gray Macritchie · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Sep 2021•Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to euthanise dogs where appropriate to reduce the risks of further and more serious incidents
  2. Failure to fully investigate reports of dog attacks
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Available evidence and legal thresholds meant prosecution or a destruction order for the dog could not realistically have succeeded.

    Stated by Devon & Cornwall PoliceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to euthanise dogs where appropriate to reduce the risks of further and more serious incidents

Wider context from the report

“That reports of dog attacks are fully investigated and, where appropriate, a dog is euthanised to try and reduce the risks of further and more serious incidents. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to fully investigate reports of dog attacks

Wider context from the report

“That reports of dog attacks are fully investigated and, where appropriate, a dog is euthanised to try and reduce the risks of further and more serious incidents. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Available evidence and legal thresholds meant prosecution or a destruction order for the dog could not realistically have succeeded.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to both incidents, enquiries were undertaken but ultimately the police were unable to identify definitive evidence that ████████ had acted in a way that represented an offence; therefore, the owner of ████████ was given words of advice by the police about keeping the dog secure.”

Source location

2021-0315-Response-from-Devon-Cornwall-Police_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 23 September 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Existing procedures and operational practice are considered sufficient for appropriately and robustly handling reports involving dogs posing a risk of serious harm.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I understand fully why you have raised this matter under a Regulation 28 report based upon the information available to you at that time, along with the terrible tragedy that resulted in the death of Frankie. In responding to your direction, undertakings by operational and senior leaders including discussions with front line colleagues assures me that Devon and Cornwall Police are dealing with reports appropriately where a dog poses a risk of serious harm. On the basis of these enquiries, I am of the view that we dealt with such reports robustly. This includes having to defend our position through the courts and the media.”

Source location

2021-0315-Response-from-Devon-Cornwall-Police_Published
Page 5 · response
Published 23 September 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Limited evidence and the incidents' relatively low seriousness meant seizure was not considered necessary or legally justified at that time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These incidents were concerning, notwithstanding that no physical injury to a person or animal was alleged, with police taking action. I am nevertheless confident that, between the seriousness of these allegations and the lack of evidence available to the police, that a prosecution for a s.3 DDA would not have been possible, nor would have an application for a destruction order (whether following a conviction for a s.3 DDA offence or by complaint to the court under the 1871 Act). In short, I am confident that any attempt by the police to have ████████ destroyed would have been unsuccessful.”

Source location

2021-0315-Response-from-Devon-Cornwall-Police_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 23 September 2021

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Explore with the Police and Crime Commissioner opportunities for enhanced public communication about dangerous dogs, potentially involving farming and local authority partners.

    Stated by Devon & Cornwall PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 September 2021.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    A control order could not lawfully require restrictions in private places without evidence that the dog was out of control there.

    Stated by Devon & Cornwall PoliceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Explore with the Police and Crime Commissioner opportunities for enhanced public communication about dangerous dogs, potentially involving farming and local authority partners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you would expect, correspondence from yourself is taken most seriously by me. Whilst I am assured in regard to the specific questions you raise, I have nevertheless taken this opportunity to give further consideration to how Devon and Cornwall Police can improve our approach to the policing of dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs with the public. Whilst I am satisfied as to our procedures, I do perceive that the public do not always contact us and we are not always consistent in making clear why and how our decision making has taken place. I will explore with the Police and Crime Commissioner the opportunities for enhanced public communication, potentially with our farming community and Local Authority partners in respect of dangerous dogs.”

Source location

2021-0315-Response-from-Devon-Cornwall-Police_Published
Page 5 · response
Published 23 September 2021

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

A control order could not lawfully require restrictions in private places without evidence that the dog was out of control there.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is also arguable that a DCO could have been made, or a similar order applied for under s.2 of the 1871 Act, in response to these incidents, with a requirement that ████████ be kept under proper control. I accept that these were options available to the police at the time.”

Source location

2021-0315-Response-from-Devon-Cornwall-Police_Published
Page 4 · response
Published 23 September 2021

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026