Locally Tackling Pet Theft What Can We Do?

We all recognize that Pet Theft is sweeping across our United Kingdom and in Suffolk, we are equally as afflicted by this rise in crime as other counties. This report will be following on from my conversation with Suffolks Police and Crime Commissioner Tim Passmore.

Tim as an avid dog owner and lover was very open about the impacts on Pet Owners across the county. Now in Suffolk, we have eighteen reported cases of Dog Thefts. This is a clear distinction which we need to make as cases are reported as Thefts not as specific crimes. Now as I spoke to Tim he expressed his views candidly about how “Adhorrent the crime is and how it affects owners like a child being taken from them”.

The importance to remember here was that local constabularies are obligated to record the crime as a possession theft as they are recorded as an object first. Tim makes the clear point that the animal is a living being and it is my view that we should rightly view them as such this links back to Animal Welfare Sentencing reform which would recognize a greater severity for sentencing guidelines. We still have work to do in this area as we need to apply this sentence in my view to a specific act of UK law. Now whilst Suffolk Constabulary records these thefts as both traditional item theft and pet thefts is certainly useful in tackling this crime. It is also where we must recognize not only the distress that this has caused on owners but also on how wider implications of sentencing could be applied against those that commit these offenses.

Presently the UK like other countries applies sentences in a discounted way where the crimes will have been recorded but the time they have served will be served concurrently or at the same time as the first sentence. Rather than a cumulative approach where if the offender commits a series of offenses the sentences do not sequentially add on to each other. Now in the UK, we have three specific types of sentencing Suspended sentences where the duration is less than a year this is often how Pet Theft is dealt with nationally which also highlights the need for reform. The aim would be to push for a Determinate sentence were unlike the suspended sentence where the sentence is held unless the guilty party reoffends a determinate sentence sees half of the offender’s sentence in prison and half in the community. This is where the probationary sentence comes into account and ensures that the guilty party does not re-offend. Indeterminate sentences are used to identify where the courts can use their powers to determine a minimum imposed sentence which could be used where you have a repeat offender or when the individual is linked to organized crime.

Now Tim highlights that the maximum sentence for theft is up to seven years but this does not mean that the judiciary has to sentence up to this amount and the guidance for the courts may be tied from using tougher sentences. Now why is this the case, one area is culpability is an area that should be reflected on in a specific act because although this relates to the planning and coordination of the theft. Guidelines then have to further examine the level of harm to an individual now this form of measurement is a subjective matter and should not necessarily be applied in this way. If the animal itself was recognized as having harm applied to it by recognizing the conditions or impact on it and the distress to owner or keeper in a way that is more referencable to the courts this could likely lead to tougher sentences. We went on to discuss the importance of the Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill both its importance and significance as a way to develop specific and tougher sentences but also as a way to build on changes brought in at a later stage.

In terms of trends, Tim says that present data does not trend to any particular breed but as always high demand or popular breeds can be easier targets as the criminals are aware they can move them on easier. Now from this, I draw the conclusion that they are also aware of how much these popular breeds fetch online and as a result the value of the breed specifically. Whereas we could draw from this less well-known breeds may not be as identifiable and whilst we certainly should not let our guard down as dogs are stolen for a variety of reasons where we must be vigilant to protect our precious pets. There is no evidence as of yet to suggest that breeds are stolen to order and therefore business owners should remain vigilant of their risk to theft but they are at no greater risk of opportunistic thieves than the general public. Now building on my previous article Tim points out that whilst these thieves are stealing pets from gardens as well as kennels they have a variety of methods and are not deterred from entering a house to steal a litter of puppies. Now, this highlights ways you can reduce the risk of break-ins by methods such as alarm systems which must be armed, CCTV, robust locks, and not advertising any litters of puppies or kittens which may attract opportunistic thieves. One area which Tim points out that we have not spoken about is how something which may not be outrightly suspicious may be a tool for criminal groups using distraction theft to talk to the owner and cause someone to let their guard down and allow someone to abduct their pet.

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/centres-institutes/centre-criminology/blog/2016/01/more-one-crime-sentencing-multiple-offences

https://www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/sentencing/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/theft-general/

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/theft-general/

Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill

This week the latest incarnation of the Animal Welfare Sentencing bill is entering the house again for a further reading prior to entering the Lords. Now I want to highlight this because this particular bill could give us at the very least a potential avenue to attach Pet Theft Reform sentencing guidelines too. Now to begin with Animal Welfare sentencing in the UK needs to align with other western countries.

Now the guidance within this new bill would also make a particular focus on the changing digital world, paying a focus to where the offender films themselves committing the offence. This is both critical to allow social media platform and users to report and identify abusers which the police can then used as further evidence as an “aggravating factor”. Now for offenders who are caught on camera, this would not be the case but the differentiation of the attitudes of those knowingly committing the offence needs to be recognised and actioned accordingly. It was cited that the RSPCA identified that the filming of animal abuse had risen from 2019 and this needs to be apart of any reforms as it offers a way we can stop the open sharing of these acts of abuse on social media channels. It would also be worth addressing here that whilst points were made in the regard to recording the bill a potential area that needs further refining is the circulation and sharing of this content. Those found to be knowingly sharing this type of media need some form of penalty to act as a deterrent otherwise the work taken to seek justice against the abuser will be lessened by the circulation of the content. My hope is this will be addressed by the Government White Papers at online harms more broadly and that animal abuse is featured specifically.

Now whilst I would add here that when this issue was debated cross-party MPs both advocated for the bill to have amendments which at the very least would use the same sentencing guidelines as seen with robbery. However, it was pointed out by Tom Hunt the MP for Ipswich that at times these guidelines do not echo the sentiments of the public. He particularly cites Pet Theft here and the reason the call for reform is still needed in this case is because of the view that these sentencing guidelines give to the courts they treat the animal as an object and not in a specific way under the law. If the animal was treated specifically under the law it would provide us the general public and animal owners with the knowledge that those who commit these offences and also knowingly abuse someones beloved pet when they are stolen but that justice will be enacted. A further amendment to this bill would also make acts that are often associated with other crimes or forms of abuse against animals such as mutilation which are associated with dogfighting or baiting. These harsher sentences would enable our justice system to empower the police to protect our animals and tackle the criminal gangs perpetuating revenue from animal abuse.

A proposal presented to increase the effectiveness of the bill as well as making sure that animals are treated fairly and evenly not establishing systems where cruelty to domestic animals is targeted under this bill but not wild animals. The RSPCA and various other charities can report how acts of cruelty against wildlife can arguably be as severe as what we see in companion animals and no less worth safeguarding. Points which were raised that in particular areas that then targeted wildlife, in particular, were even less adequate than that which the bill seeks to rectify. The MPs however, do rightly point out to protect pets a subsequent amendment for wild animals may need to be included at a later point. It is therefore positive to see support for further animal rights reform in national politics.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2622/publications

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0014/200014.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4