No Charges for Officers in Poplar Dog Shooting: IOPC Investigation Clears Police of Wrongdoing After 17-Month Investigation
Split-Second Decisions Under the Microscope in Viral Incident
It has taken the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) 17 months to conclude its investigation into an incident in Poplar, east London, that drew widespread public attention and sparked heated debate.
In May 2023, Metropolitan Police and City of London Police officers responded to a report of a woman being attacked by a dog.
The response culminated in the Taser deployment on a man, Louie Turnbull, who had previously been banned from owning dogs for 20 years following a 2019 court order, and the fatal shooting of his two Cane Corso dogs.
The incident was captured in mobile phone footage that quickly went viral, generating significant backlash and a petition with over 100,000 signatures demanding accountability from the police.
In their press release, the IOPC reported that their investigation found no evidence of criminal misconduct or disciplinary breaches by the officers involved.
All officers were treated as witnesses, and the IOPC relied on body-worn camera footage, CCTV, public and expert testimonies, and other evidence to reach its decision. However, officers and observers have heavily criticised the investigation timeline.
An Overstretched Timeline?
The 17-month investigation has raised questions about the IOPC's efficiency and effectiveness. Phill Matthews, a prominent voice on police conduct issues, summed up the frustration of many:
"20 months to conclude 1 simple investigation where all the material they needed was available within days! This is why officers have little to no faith in this organisation investigating them."
Matthews' remarks reflect a broader concern within the police force: drawn-out investigations not only hinder officers' ability to move on from incidents but also erode trust in oversight mechanisms meant to ensure accountability and transparency.
Got a story or video to share? Need to get something off your chest?
Our team of experienced former emergency services and armed forces personnel wants to hear from you! With 230,000 monthly views, your story could reach a wide audience. Email us at contact@emergency-services.news.
This case, with its readily available video evidence and witness testimonies, appears to underline these criticisms. The delays have done little to help public perception or officer morale.
Dog Unit Resourcing in Jeopardy
One of the most striking elements of the IOPC statement is its recommendation for both the Metropolitan Police and City of London Police to review their availability and demand for dog handlers.
This suggestion comes at a precarious time, as the Metropolitan Police faces a mandate to save £400 million annually. Specialist units, including dog units, are under threat of cuts.
Dog handlers play a critical role in ensuring public safety in situations involving aggressive or dangerous animals. They carry specialised equipment designed to subdue aggressive dogs without resorting to lethal force.
Had a dog unit been available during the Poplar incident, it's possible the situation could have been resolved without the dogs being shot. Yet, this incident and its aftermath underscore the risks faced by officers when resources are stretched too thin.
Enjoying this post from ESN Report? It's public, so don’t keep it to yourself—share it with friends, colleagues, or anyone who supports our emergency services, the NHS, or armed forces!
If budget cuts force reductions in the number of trained dog handlers, incidents like the one in Poplar could become even more challenging for officers to manage safely—potentially escalating tensions with the public further.
Lack of Transparency Adds to Speculation
The IOPC's decision not to release further details due to "welfare concerns for some of the individuals involved" has left a significant and important gap in the narrative. While protecting individual welfare is paramount, the lack of elaboration has fueled conjecture.
Who are these individuals, and what specific concerns are at play? Without further explanation, the decision risks leaving both officers and the public in the dark.
This opacity compounds the frustration over the lengthy investigation. For those who petitioned against the "barbaric" shooting of the dogs, the absence of detailed conclusions may feel like a dismissal of their concerns. On the other hand, officers involved in the incident might feel further isolated, with limited avenues to explain or defend their actions in light of the public backlash.
A Polarised Incident
As a former police officer in the Met and someone who has had dogs since childhood, I believe there is only one person to blame for what happened to the dogs: their owner.
A court order explicitly banned Louie Turnbull from owning dogs, yet he chose to ignore this.
No police officer wants to shoot a dog—most of them are dog lovers—but they are often forced to make split-second decisions in high-pressure situations to protect the public and themselves.
At the heart of this case is the polarising video footage. On one side, campaigners argued that the dogs were under control and posed no threat—an assertion bolstered by the viral video's emotional impact.
On the other, police officers made split-second decisions in a charged environment, facing what they deemed a significant threat to public and their own safety.
These situations often leave no room for error, and the backlash—including a petition calling for accountability—illustrates the intense scrutiny officers now face, especially in situations where they have only seconds to respond.
OPINION: A 17-Month Wait: The Poplar Dog Shooting Investigation and the Plight of Policing
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) recently concluded its investigation into the Poplar dog shooting incident after 17 months. While the officers involved were cleared of any wrongdoing, the lengthy timeline and broader implications of the case warrant careful reflection.
The investigation timeline is a cause for concern. Seventeen months to examine an incident with readily available video evidence, witness statements, and body camera footage raises questions about the efficiency of the process. This delay places undue strain on officers involved and risks undermining public confidence in oversight mechanisms….
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to ESN Report to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.