DogNapping Law

[icowden]

Anyone excited by the new Dognapping law?

It resurfaced again in the papers this week:-

https://news.sky.com/story/dognappe...ars-in-jail-after-rise-in-pet-thefts-12471300

Another great example of Tory clickbait.

"Look! We did what you asked and we are going to make a new law! Aren't we fab!"

Everyone in the legal profession:-

"So - a dog is intrinsically less valuable than a television?"

Or my favourite take on it:-


View: https://twitter.com/Wigapedia/status/1461693081976295429?s=20

 

[BoldonLad]

Sounds very balanced to me. Steal a dog, get 5 years. Kill a cyclist, get an 18 month ban from driving (which you can ignore anyway).

Didn’t we already have a law against theft?

 

[icowden]

Sounds very balanced to me. Steal a dog, get 5 years. Kill a cyclist, get an 18 month ban from driving (which you can ignore anyway).

Didn’t we already have a law against theft?

Yes - but it didn't take into account the very personal nature of dog theft which is more akin to kidnapping. Campaigners wanted a specific offence of dog theft. Usefully however it values a dog less than your TV, bike or sound system.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes - but it didn't take into account the very personal nature of dog theft which is more akin to kidnapping. Campaigners wanted a specific offence of dog theft. Usefully however it values a dog less than your TV, bike or sound system.

So, we can expect a whole series of new laws, “cat napping”, “hamster napping”, “gold fish napping” etc etc.

Why not? It’s not like there is anything important to occupy the governments time

 

[Pale Rider]

The Secret Twatterer ought to know better.

The current law doesn't formally recognise the emotional detachment owners have to their dogs.

Maximum sentences are largely irrelevant, no one gets them apart from Wayne Couzens.

Several pet welfare organisations seem to welcome the new law, which might be a better guide than an anonymous poster on social media.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The Secret Twatterer ought to know better.

The current law doesn't formally recognise the emotional detachment owners have to their dogs.

Maximum sentences are largely irrelevant, no one gets them apart from Wayne Couzens.

Several pet welfare organisations seem to welcome the new law, which might be a better guide than an anonymous poster on social media.

Why will the max sentence for dog theft be any less susceptible to being pushed down by the usual discounting/release on tag than the current sentence. Unless of course it's like TWOC/theft where vehicles are concerned; less focus in intent to permanently deprive.

 

[qigong chimp]

The current law doesn't formally recognise the emotional detachment owners have to their dogs.

So should someone reading in your column (fanciful I know: let's assume marooned on a desert island and a copy of The Blyth Bletherer washes up) that the accused was found guilty and sent down for a long stretch, conclude that the prosecution offered no evidence and the case was dismissed?

Asking for a castaway.

 

[Pale Rider]

So should someone reading in your column (fanciful I know: let's assume marooned on a desert island and a copy of The Blyth Bletherer washes up) that the accused was found guilty and sent down for a long stretch, conclude that the prosecution offered no evidence and the case was dismissed?

Asking for a castaway.

Wtf are you on about?

Asking for anyone unfortunate enough to read your post.

 

[icowden]

The current law doesn't formally recognise the emotional detachment owners have to their dogs.
Maximum sentences are largely irrelevant, no one gets them apart from Wayne Couzens.
Several pet welfare organisations seem to welcome the new law, which might be a better guide than an anonymous poster on social media.

It's almost like the Secret Barrister has a law degree and the people representing pet welfare organisations don't.
If the range was 0 to 7 years and is now 0 to 5 years, why is that you think more people will get 5 years after the new law is passed than before?

If you look at the discussion in parliament, it was brought up multiple times that dog thefts tend to go to magistrates courts and rarely get more than a fine. Perhaps, this is what needs to be looked at? The sentencing guidelines cover both intrinsic value and emotional value.

 

[Pale Rider]

If the range was 0 to 7 years and is now 0 to 5 years, why is that you think more people will get 5 years after the new law is passed than before?

Read my post, I don't think that.

Maximums are largely irrelevant because no one gets them.

Yet to be written sentencing guidelines will be the key.

If the starting point for a dognap is, say, 12 months, that will be a significant increase over the fines routinely doled out in magistrates' courts when the offence is dealt with under the Theft Act.

All of which The Secret Twatterer ought to know.

 

[icowden]

If the starting point for a dognap is, say, 12 months, that will be a significant increase over the fines routinely doled out in magistrates' courts when the offence is dealt with under the Theft Act.
All of which The Secret Twatterer ought to know.

I think the argument is that rather than mess about with creating new Acts of Parliament to enact laws that aren't needed, maybe the sentencing guidelines could be improved?

 

[Pale Rider]

I think the argument is that rather than mess about with creating new Acts of Parliament to enact laws that aren't needed, maybe the sentencing guidelines could be improved?

That comes back to putting a value on the loss problem.

Only putting a cash value on a dog is inadequate because the distress caused by the loss of a £50 mongrel or a free stray can be just as bad as the loss of a Crufts dog worth thousands.

Hence the sound idea of creating a new offence which can take account of emotional distress, irrespective of cash value.

I agree creating ever more offences is not always the answer, but it does seem to be a good plan in this case.

 

[BoldonLad]

I think the argument is that rather than mess about with creating new Acts of Parliament to enact laws that aren't needed, maybe the sentencing guidelines could be improved?

Or, even, enforce the existing laws?

 

[Bromptonaut]

Read my post, I don't think that.

Maximums are largely irrelevant because no one gets them.

Yet to be written sentencing guidelines will be the key.

If the starting point for a dognap is, say, 12 months, that will be a significant increase over the fines routinely doled out in magistrates' courts when the offence is dealt with under the Theft Act.

All of which The Secret Twatterer ought to know.

The SB has simply pointed out a fact, maybe a lacuna, with the max sentences for dognapping v theft.

Will it be a summary offence, indictable or either way?

How is 'dognapping' defined in the new legislation?

If it uses the same rules as theft (intent to permanently deprive?) then it's difficult to see it making a difference. The outcome could be achieved via sentencing guidelines covering theft of sentient animals and suggesting a starting point that may lead to sentencing being sent to the crown court.

If it recognises the differing issues with dogs and actually makes 'napping' them an offence then it becomes clear why new law is needed.

 

[swansonj]

That comes back to putting a value on the loss problem.

Only putting a cash value on a dog is inadequate because the distress caused by the loss of a £50 mongrel or a free stray can be just as bad as the loss of a Crufts dog worth thousands.

Hence the sound idea of creating a new offence which can take account of emotional distress, irrespective of cash value.

I agree creating ever more offences is not always the answer, but it does seem to be a good plan in this case.

Is there a legal reason why the sentencing guidelines for the existing offence couldn't be modified to take account of emotional distress as well as financial loss? IANAL but I would guess that sentencing guidelines often mention things not mentioned explicitly in the legislation they relate to?