Thread by @Barristerblog

A thread on the report of the Pet Theft Task Force which reported today. You can download their report here. gov.uk/government/pub…

Although its remit extended to all pets, it concentrated on dogs, although cat theft gets a brief mention.

It was set up in May as a response to media reports that there had been an “explosion” in dog thefts during the lockdown. Last February Dog Lost was claiming, for example, that there had been an increase in dog theft of 250% since March 2020. countypress.co.uk/news/19093704.…

The issue featured in many of the Spring’s Police and Crime Commissioner election campaigns.

The successful candidate for Avon and Somerset PCC, for example, repeated the 250% “statistic” and declared himself disgusted at the “shocking increase in pet thefts.” You can watch Mark Shelford make his campaign pitch here.
m.facebook.com/watch/?v=20906…

In fact, Avon and Somerset Police recorded just 18 dog thefts in 2020. The mean number of such reports over the previous 5 years was 24.2. There was no need to worry about a “shocking increase” in pet thefts in Avon and Somerset, because there hadn’t been one.

Other Conservative PCCs joined the campaign. Katy Bourne, the successful candidate for Sussex organised a survey of 125,000 people – rather statistically dubious & self-selecting – which reported that 79% of dog owners had grown more fearful of taking their dog for a walk.

“The rise in pet theft in recent weeks,” said Ms Bourne during her election campaign, “has been extraordinary, like nothing we have ever witnessed.” No wonder people were scared.
katybourne.com/news/dognappin…

Sussex Police’s figures for the years 2015 – 2020 actually show that a dog is extremely unlikely to be stolen in Sussex: in fact reported dog thefts in Sussex in 2020 hit a 5 year low.

And of the 31 dogs reported stolen, “at least 12 were disputes over dog ownership between known parties.” They sound more like family disputes than crimes. Surely these PCC candidates were not stoking paranoia for electoral gain?
theargus.co.uk/news/19164723.…

In response to these concerns, in May of this year the “Pet Theft Task Force” was announced, a joint initiative between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. According to its terms of reference the Government wished to “explore” 3 claims.

The claims to be explored were:
1. That pet theft is increasing,
2. That criminal enterprise is fuelling such behaviour; and
3. That the law dealing with theft where a pet is involved, is ineffective.
gov.uk/government/pub…

The Task Force has now reported.
Its main conclusion is that the law should be changed to introduce a new offence of “pet abduction.”

The report notes that the evidence about pet thefts is based largely on freedom of information requests from police forces, not all of whom responded.

So the evidence of the extent of the problem is incomplete and not very reliable. But it’s the best we’ve got.

The report estimates that around 2000 dog thefts are reported to the police every year. It’s an estimate because not all police forces have provided any figures.

There is no evidence that that there has been an explosion, or even any significant increase, in recent years. There may have been a slight increase in 2020, but there were probably fewer dog thefts than in 2017 or 2018.

In summary, the report concluded that “in the context of an estimated population of 9.6 million dogs in the UK … the risk of falling victim to dog theft is low.”

So in answer to the first question: the Task Force found no evidence that pet theft is significantly increasing.

That's my summary by the way, not their words.

The second question was: “is criminal enterprise fuelling the increase?” Well if there hasn’t been an increase, the question doesn’t arise. There is, said the report “some anecdotal information that dog theft may be part of the wider organised crime landscape.”

The third question: “is the law dealing with theft where a pet is involved ineffective?”
If the purpose of the criminal law is to prevent pet theft, and the crime rate for pet theft is low and stable, the answer is that, yes, it’s quite effective.

But despite failing to find any evidence of an ineffective law, obviously "something must be done." The obvious thing might have been to invite the Sentencing Council to look again at its guidelines on sentences for pet theft.

I think the Theft, Burglary, Robbery and Blackmail guidelines are already adequate, but perhaps judges could be given more explicit guidance to take the distress to pet owners into account when sentencing.

Campaigners wanted a law focussing on the distress done to owners and their families when their pets are stolen.

The Task Force heard from some of them.

It explicitly rejects such an approach. The focus, says the Task Force, should switch away from the distress to the owner and onto the distress to the pet.

I can’t speak for cats, but most dogs are largely indifferent to the legal niceties accompanying any change in their living arrangements. Why should the court focus on the animal’s view of the abduction, when the animal may be quite happy with its new, albeit criminal, owners?

It is a classic – with acknowledgments to David Allen Green – “Something must be done” proposal.

Scaremongering, – mostly Conservative – Police and Crime Commissioners and Westminster Politicians will claim the credit for doing something.

If implemented as proposed, we will have another unnecessary law that will satisfy nobody except politicians who can say “we’ve done something”. It will do nothing to deter pet theft or to promote animal welfare.

The best that can be said for it is that it will almost certainly hardly ever be used anyway. What a waste of time.

But meanwhile, please don't be afraid to walk your dog. Despite what politicians say it is very unlikely indeed to be stolen.

Somewhere along the line this thread broke, continues below.

https://twitter.com/Barristerblog/status/1433761905273888775?s=19