Deployment of Police Dogs Recommendation Review
- Recommendations
- 2
- Published responses
- 1
- Report length
- 9 pages
Summary
The report's own summary: OVERVIEW, pages 4 to 5
Generated summary: written by an AI model from the report text and checked against the cited pages.
The Corruption and Crime Commission reviewed WA Police's response to its earlier recommendations about the deployment of police dogs.
The two recommendations sought clearer operational rules and analysis of why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were overrepresented in dog deployments.
The Commission recognised the proposed changes but concluded that it was too early to assess whether the recommendations had been addressed.
The Commission planned to review progress by WA Police again after 12 months.
In the body's own words
- Conclusion
The Commission acknowledges the commitment of WA Police to addressing the inherent risks associated with the use of police dogs.
- Conclusion
However, it is considered too early to assess whether the two recommendations have been addressed.
Findings, opinions and statements
Allegations are not findings. A commission's finding or opinion of corrupt conduct or misconduct is not a finding that a person is guilty of a criminal offence, and the commissions say so in their reports.
No findings are reproduced in this record. This does not establish that the report contains none.
Recommendations 2
Recommendation One
Develop and implement WA Police Canine Unit Policy, Procedure and/or Guidelines.
Recommendation Two
Undertake further analysis of police dog use to explore and address reasons for the higher representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons in police dog deployments.
Published responses 1
Official documents 2
Deployment of Police Dogs Recommendation Review
Document details
- Role
- Report
Media Release - CCC reports on actions taken by WA Police in relation to use of police dogs
Document details
- Status
- Linked
- Role
- Media release
Notes on this record
- Report type assigned by OPAX from the title; the Commission tags every listing item Report.
- Date is the date the Commission's report page was published; the report states no date OPAX read.
Coverage
This publisher
- The Commission's website has no copyright or licence page; reports carry the Commission's copyright notice (fair dealing only), so OPAX keeps short verbatim extracts with citations and links the original PDFs.
- Only the reports listing (/publications/reports) is covered. Annual reports, quarterly reports filed under /quarterly-reports, media releases and news items are not report records.
- The listing date is the date the Commission's page was created; the record date is the report's cover date or the tabling date stated on the page where one is given, and the listing date only as a fallback.
- Opinions are extracted only where the Commission states them in a sentence on a single page; opinions in older reports framed differently, or split over a page break, are not extracted (findings not_extracted).
- No text layer, no OCR: scanned reports have no extracted opinions or recommendations.