Pet Theft

Debate between Mike Hill and Yvonne Fovargue

Monday 2nd July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Hill]

Fifty quid, indeed.

At present, the sentencing guidelines are such that it is hard to see a situation where a non-financially valuable pet can get out of category 4 and a prized pedigree can get out of category 3. That is clearly wrong. We should not tie the hands of the sentencing court by being prescriptive over value in cases such as pet theft. Where the theft of a family pet is involved, monetary value is irrelevant and should be disregarded.

We need tougher sentences. Since the 2016 revision to the sentencing guidelines, there has been no evidence that the courts have become any tougher on pet theft. Very few cases are getting to court. When they do, the guilty most often walk free. Some 98% of criminal cases are heard in magistrates courts, where sentencing for pet theft is almost certainly below six months.

Dr Daniel Allen’s research has found that less than 5% of dog theft crimes lead to charges, which includes community orders. The often-cited seven-year maximum sentence has never been awarded for the theft of a pet and cannot be handed down specifically for the theft of a pet. Alongside that, microchipping dogs became compulsory across the UK in April 2016, but scanning remains optional.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the microchipping law was a missed opportunity? People who have their dogs microchipped are still not the legal owner, but simply the keeper of the pet. Maybe it is time for another debate on how we can improve the microchipping laws.

[Mike Hill]

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is a worthy subject for further debate.

In June 2018, a gang of four were tried at Lincoln Crown court following a burglary in Middle Rasen, Lincolnshire. Fifteen Cavalier King Charles spaniels were taken, including one that was pregnant. One of the dogs was later recovered on the side of a motorway, having been thrown from a moving vehicle. All four accused pleaded guilty to theft, but despite this being a serious case in the highest possible court, the gang members still received only suspended sentences. Two years earlier, five connected men had been sentenced in the same court to a total of 12 years in jail for conspiracy to steal railway cables. That sort of scrap metal theft used to be fashionable until the Government gave that crime a more serious consequence.

Our pets need improved protection, too. The revisions proposed by SAMPA would be so much simpler to achieve. SAMPA just wants to improve the existing legislation. SAMPA, Dogs Trust and others want the Government both to amend the Theft Act 1968 to reclassify the theft of pets as a specific crime in its own right and to improve the sentencing guidelines. Their suggestions for pet theft reforms are small and attainable, but those highly significant revisions would make the existing law much more appropriate for modern families and their pets. SAMPA wants to tweak section 4(4) of the 1968 Act, relating to property, to include a special mention of the theft of pet animals. It already details mushrooms and wild animals, so why not pets?