Defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences under the Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015, April to December 2016 (1)(2)
Offence
Dog microchip database operator fail to comply with a notice served by Secretary of State / 1
Keeper of unmicrochipped dog transfer dog to new keeper / -
Implant a microchip in a dog when unqualified / -
Fail to comply with notice prohibiting implanting of microchips in dogs / -
Fail to report adverse reaction to / failure of dog microchip / -
Keeper of dog fail to comply with notice to get dog microchipped within 21 days / 9
Obstruct authorised person under Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 / -
Total / 10
'-' = Nil
(1) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.
Ref: PQ 8866
Background
Under The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015 all dogs must be microchipped and the details entered onto a database. The requirements were effective from 6 April 2016. Local authorities enforce the regulations. If a dog comes to their attention that is not microchipped they can serve a notice on the owner to get the dog chipped within 28 days. Failure to comply with the notice is a criminal offence punishable with a maximum penalty of a fine of £500.
The case involving the serving of a notice on a database concerned a database we do not consider is compliant with the regulations by not having access to other databases’ records which means it is not fully effective. Despite serving a notice we have been unable to close down their website because it is based overseas.
Available elsewhere?
This is a further breakdown of published information from the annual publication, linked below.
Trend
It is too early to interpret any trends, as these offences are very new.