Why the Pet Abduction Act 2024 does not, and should not, apply in Wales

Dr Huw Evans, academic lawyer, Cardiff Metropolitan University

The Pet Abduction Act 2024 (PAA) has just come into force.

It applies in England and Northern Ireland but not in Wales or Scotland.

Animal welfare is devolved, and the Scotland and Wales Governments chose not to apply the PAA; the Wesh Government decided to ‘prioritise resources to existing commitments for animal welfare’.

This article argues that, while well-intentioned, the PAA is ill-considered and that pressure to extent its effect to Wales should be resisted.

Note that ‘pet misappropriation’ is used when referring to both pet theft and pet abduction.

Prison sentence

The Act creates offences of dog abduction and cat abduction (sections 1-2) (pet abduction). Each offence carries a maximum prison sentence of 5 years. The PAA also allows similar offences to be created for other animals kept as pets.

The recommendation for the creating the offence was originally contained in  a UK 2021 Government policy paper, the Pet Theft Taskforce Report. The Pet Taskforce was established ‘to gather evidence to understand the factors that may be contributing to a perceived or real rise in pet thefts’ and make recommendations.

However, although it received UK Government support, the PAA was introduced as a private members’ bill.

It also had cross-party and other support from, for example, animal welfare organisations.

Rationale for the PAA

At the Second Reading of the PAA in the House of Commons, Anna Firth, MP and PAA sponsor, said: “The golden thread running through this Bill is that dogs and cats are sentient beings. They are not mere property; animals and humans can and do form emotional bonds and there is a devastating impact when animal abduction takes place, both on people and on pets. That needs to be properly reflected in our criminal law.

“….[T]heft of a cat or dog is already a crime under the Theft Act 1968 and the Theft Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, but under those Acts the sentience and intrinsic value of animals is not recognised…

So if a pet is abducted…[t]he Bill recognises that pets are family, not property, and… it is the intention of the Bill to allow the courts to consider th[e] impact on both the owner and the welfare of the animal when deciding on the penalty.

Two other reasons were mentioned justifying the PAA.  First, as the law of theft is not animal specific, it was claimed the police do not take pet theft sufficiently seriously; creating an offence of pet abduction overcomes this.

The second reason concerns lack of data hindering the issue’s proper evaluation: ‘pet theft and abduction do not currently have a unique identification in datasets.’ Creating the offence of pet abduction enables this position to be corrected.

Evaluation 

Pets are not ‘mere property’ but they are property. The PAA does nothing to change this as pets continue to have owners and can be bought and sold etc.

Of course, because pets are sentient, they can be distinguished from inanimate objects. But the law has long recognised that distinction through animal welfare legislation and, specifically, the offence of causing an animal unnecessary suffering  (Animal Welfare Act 2006, section 4), which carries a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

It is wrong to say that the emotional effect of a pet theft on an owner cannot be considered when sentencing. The situation can be improved by ensuring that sentencing courts are fully aware of that effect. Sentencing guidelines can also be strengthened regarding factors to be considered.

As to the adverse effect on a pet that is stolen, courts can consider this under the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to the animal.

Ensuring that the police take pet misappropriation seriously is not justification for the PAA. That is an enforcement issue rooted in such things as police culture, offence awareness, enforcement priorities, and resourcing.

Similarly, the desire to establish a specific pet dataset does not provide justification. That outcome can be achieved administratively through better and more focussed data gathering methods.

Theft and pet abduction

Under England and Wales law, a pet can be stolen as pets are treated as property. (Theft Act 1968 (TA), see sections 1-7). Theft carries a maximum prison sentence of 7 years.

The offences of pet abduction and theft run in parallel. The main substantive difference is that theft requires an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property (i.e. the pet), whereas pet abduction does not. But the difference is unlikely to be significant as pet abduction invariably involves an intention to permanently deprive the owner.

To establish theft also requires dishonesty. This is not needed for pet abduction. But, again, this difference is not material as there is a defence to pet abduction where a person has lawful authority or reasonable excuse: i.e. where there is non-dishonest conduct.

The PAA and its relationship with theft law has not been thought through. Theft from a building is burglary (TA, section 9). Pets will be abducted from buildings. But the PAA does not take account of this, leaving burglary to be charged. The maximum prison sentence is 14 years where there is a dwelling, otherwise it is 10 years.

Similarly, theft involving force, or its threat, is robbery (TA, section 8), for which the maximum prison sentence is life. Pets can be abducted through force or its threat. Again, the PAA does not take this circumstance into account, meaning that there will be a reliance on charging with robbery.

Despite the new offence, where these aggravating features accompany pet abduction, burglary and robbery must be charged.

And in those cases, how is the concern about maintaining pet misappropriation datasets to be addressed?

As to sentencing powers, the PAA does not improve matters if the maximum prison sentence for pet abduction is 5 years, yet for theft, burglary and robbery it is 7, 10 or 14 years, and life respectively? And it is 5 years for causing an animal unnecessary suffering.

Public reaction

The public reaction to the PAA has been supportive but has concentrated on the ‘headline’ and not the detail. The following from The Bolton News is an example:

A new law has officially come into place…meaning the theft or detaining of a cat or dog is now a criminal offence…

Reading that, a person might think that pre-existing law did not criminalise pet misappropriation. That is wrong but misunderstanding has arisen.

Pre-existing theft and animal welfare law is the better vehicle to deal with pet misappropriation. For example, sentencing guidelines can be strengthened concerning pet theft and the emotional impact on owners and others, and concerning pet suffering; any suffering following misappropriation can only be ‘unnecessary’.

If substantive law change is needed, that change should be to theft and animal welfare law. One example might be to refer to pet theft in the TA as an aggravating feature for sentencing courts to consider.

As a comparative example, the TA already makes a distinction between domestic and other burglaries, reflected in the higher maximum sentence for domestic burglary.

Issues of enforcement and data gathering can be separately addressed outside of legislation: e.g. through education, improved resourcing, or improved data gathering methods.

In enacting the PAA there has been insufficient consideration about the adequacy of pre-existing law and its implementation. There has also been insufficient consideration about the effect of the PAA and its relationship with pre-existing law.

There is a call for the Welsh Government to extend the effect of the PAA to Wales: e.g. there is a Senedd petition. For the reasons mentioned, that pressure should be resisted.

Although outside the scope of the article, the PAA also raises broader issues about the quality of the legislative process and the appropriate use of the legislature’s time.