Senior Detective Sues Kent Police Chief Constable for £100,000 After Trainee Police Dog Bites Her on Face at Home

A senior detective is taking legal action against her chief constable after a trainee police dog allegedly bit her on the face while living in her home.

The unusual case, which has grabbed attention across the UK, highlights the complexities of police dog ownership and liability.

The Incident: A Bite That Changed Everything

Detective Chief Inspector Lynn Wilczek says she was bitten by a Belgian Malinois puppy named Frank in her kitchen.

Frank, a trainee police dog, was living with her and her partner, who is a police dog handler.

According to Wilczek, the dog lunged at her while she tried to pet him, biting her cheek and nose.

Once a devoted dog lover, Wilczek has reported that the attack left her with a newfound fear of dogs and a diagnosed anxiety disorder.

The injuries also caused lasting scarring, for which she may need plastic surgery or specialized camouflage makeup.

Legal Action Under the Animals Act 1971

Four years after the incident, DCI Wilczek has filed a civil claim against Kent Police Chief Constable Tim Smith for £100,000 under the 1971 Animals Act.

She claims that Frank, as a trainee police dog, was potentially dangerous if not properly controlled and that the police force had a duty to manage the dog safely.

The case will require a detailed examination of Frank’s temperament, the circumstances of the attack, and Kent Police’s knowledge of the dog’s potential for aggression.

Lawyers have described it as a legally complex matter, especially since the dog was a “gift dog” donated to the police with the intention of training him for future police work.

The Day of the Attack

Court documents describe the events in January 2022.

Frank had been in the garden before following Wilczek’s husband into the kitchen.

Wilczek stroked him briefly, but as she moved away, the dog lunged at her face, biting her cheek and nostril.

The resulting injuries included lacerations and puncture wounds, leaving her with both physical scars and lasting psychological trauma.

Expert Opinions and Psychological Impact

Wilczek’s barrister, John Schmitt, emphasized the severity of the injuries, describing them as a “severe laceration to her face” that still causes her pain.

Despite the attack, her career has continued, and she is now part of the Child and Adult Protection team, handling complex abuse cases.

A psychiatrist who assessed Wilczek called her “impressive and resilient” but suggested she may have downplayed the impact of the bite.

Nonetheless, she reportedly suffers from a specific phobia of dogs and a severe generalized anxiety disorder, characterized by somatic anxiety and catastrophic thinking.

Legal Complexity: Who Is Responsible?

Under Section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, liability requires proof that the dog had known dangerous tendencies.

Wilczek’s lawyers argue that Frank’s status as a trainee police dog made him the responsibility of Kent Police once he was gifted to the force.

The chief constable’s legal team, led by barrister Hayley McLorinan, has indicated the trial will examine the police’s training and supervision practices, focusing on what the force knew about Frank at the time of the attack.

Police Liability and Funding

Because chief constables are considered “corporations sole” under the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, any damages awarded would be paid from the police fund rather than the personal finances of the chief constable.

Kent Police has confirmed that it is defending the claim but declined further comment until the trial concludes.

What’s Next?

The case will move forward to a full trial to determine the amount of damages Wilczek might receive.

However, a settlement could be reached beforehand, avoiding a courtroom showdown.

The trial will likely involve expert testimony on canine behavior and detailed scrutiny of the training and supervision provided by Kent Police.

Summary

DCI Lynn Wilczek is suing Kent Police for £100,000 after being bitten on the face by trainee police dog Frank, who was living with her and her partner.

The incident left her with both physical scarring and psychological trauma.

Her claim relies on the Animals Act 1971, which considers the responsibility of dog owners for potential harm.

The case highlights legal questions around police dog liability and the supervision of gifted or trainee dogs.

The trial will explore the dog’s temperament, the police force’s knowledge, and whether the force acted responsibly in managing Frank.