The current law regards a pet as a form of “property”; a mere “possession” owned by an individual. In legal jargon, we refer to these possessions as “choses in possession”, which simply means tangible property; a term which encompasses personal property such as furniture and clothes. Given the emotional effects that the theft of a pet can have on an individual, several calls have been made for pet theft to become a specific offence.

In July 2018, Conservative MP for Aberdeen South, Ross Thomson, introduced a Private Members’ Bill in the House of Commons that would create a specific offence of theft of pets. The Pets (Theft) Bill 2017–19 would have created a pet-specific offence of theft following an online petition signed by over 100,000 members of the public. The Bill did not, however, make it very far in the House of Commons (never reaching its second reading). The Bill itself was filled with problems – an obvious example being that the Bill sought to define a “pet” as an animal which “provides companionship or assistance to any human being.” Unfortunately, no definition or explanation was given in the Bill as to the meaning of “companionship or assistance”. Whilst readers may think that these are ordinary English words, a group of lawyers would spend hours (if not more) debating the meaning and interpretation of those words.

Perhaps the way forward is not to create a pet-specific offence, but to focus one’s attention to the Definitive Sentencing Guidelines used by a court in determination of the penalty/ punishment faced by an individual convicted of theft of a pet. At present, the court must consider such factors (amongst many others) as the financial value of the property and the “emotional distress”. A particularly expensive pet, such as a pedigree breed, will increase the level of seriousness given its financial value. Is the severe emotional harm caused by losing a pet treated with as much emphasis and respect as the financial value of the pet? Perhaps not!

Some questions arise from this brief comment: is there a gap in the current law concerning the theft of pets and if so, how is the lacuna filled? Should there be a legislative intervention dealing with the investigation and prosecution of these offences? Should the Definitive Sentencing Guidelines be amended to place more emphasis on the effect of the loss of a pet? To the disappointment of many, it remains doubtful that the issue will be resolved any time soon.

Comment by Mark Thomas, Senior Lecturer in Law; Nottingham Law School, Nottingham Trent University

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more Dog News at https://www.pawsomejobs.online/blog

To find Jobs with Dogs visit https://www.pawsomejobs.online/