LAWYERS have torn into a Tory MSP over his bid to make dog theft illegal - as it's already a crime.
Maurice Golden published the findings of his 12-week consultation on his proposed Dog Abduction (Scotland) Bill this week, which would seek to create a specific offence for the crime of dog theft.
But, those in the legal profession were quick to point out that Golden’s bid is simply duplicating existing common law.
READ MORE: Brian Cox pulls out of Edinburgh Yes rally after getting Covid
Golden’s legislation would see those convicted of dog theft facing up to five years in prison - even though there isn’t a limit under the law as it stands.
That means that the Tory MSP's bill, if introduced, would actually weaken the law, not strengthen it.
And the legal community were quick to point that out as Golden celebrated 97% of responses to his consultation backing the proposals.
Scottish Legal News ran with the mortifying headline: “MSP pushes ahead with dog theft bill that replicates existing law”.
The news outlet added that the legislation had been met with “derision” from the legal community and that the Law Society of Scotland had said it was “not opposed to the creation of a new offence in principle” but felt more evidence was required.
Andrew Tickell, senior lecturer in law at the University of Glasgow, after sharing an article that stated the bill would strengthen the law, wrote on Twitter: “It might be - if dog owners thought it was currently legal to steal pets. But it isn't is it?
“It is already common law theft punishable by ... up to five years imprisonment in the Sheriff Court.
“Latest headline from politicians recriminalising things which are already crimes.”
READ MORE: Humza Yousaf offers to help UK Government with junior doctor strikes
Golden claimed that the law as it stands “doesn’t do justice” for dog owners and that his bill would address the issue.
“The law also doesn’t do enough to deter thieves, to support police in tracking them down or to build a robust picture of the scale of the problem,” he said.
“My proposed bill aims to address all of that.”
Reducing the upper limit of a life sentence for dog thieves to five years doesn't sound much like a deterrent to us.
Well, it seems Golden should have taken a bit more paws for thought before pushing ahead with the bill.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel