Dog Theft: Sentencing

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Johnson

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point, and he is right when he says that there is a failure to acknowledge the emotional impact of such thefts—that is one reason why I secured this debate. Because of the failure of the system, few statistics are kept, and stolen dogs are often deemed to have run away as there is little proof they have been stolen. There is also no separate category of the theft of a dog, and such thefts tend to be lumped together with all the other chattels that get stolen. It is believed by Blue Cross that roughly three dogs are stolen each day. Three cats are also stolen each day, and my hon. Friend was right to mention that because the same principles apply. Almost half those thefts are from people’s gardens, one in five is from burglaries, one in seven is from owners walking their dogs, and most of the other thefts take place when people leave their dogs tied up outside shops.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Dogs have been domesticated for millennia, they have been man’s best friend for centuries, and today they remain an integral part of many families and are loved as much as any member. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that introducing a new category would reflect the fact that, although dogs are animals, for many people up and down this nation their dog is as much a part of the family as any other member?

[Gareth Johnson]

As is often the case, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the failure of the current system. I argue that we can deal with that by amending the sentencing guidelines. It does not necessarily need a change in the law; it needs a change in the approach to sentencing, which is completely inadequate at the moment.

Unduly Lenient Sentences

Debate between Jim Shannon and Gareth Johnson

Wednesday 10th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am pleased to secure this debate to highlight the unfair situation that exists with appeals against sentences in our criminal courts.

At present, the defence is able to appeal against sentences that are too harsh in almost all situations, whereas only in a very limited number of situations can the prosecution appeal against a sentence that is unduly lenient. Sentences given out for serious assaults such as actual body harm, malicious wounding, cannot be appealed against by the prosecution. Neither can sentences given for burglary, distribution of child pornography or causing death by careless driving, to name but a few. A worrying situation also affects youth court cases, as no sentence imposed there can be appealed against by the prosecution, and yet the youth court deals with some serious matters, including a limited number of rape cases. It is simply wrong that no safety net is in place for the victim of crime to respond to sentences that are too lenient.

I spent 20 years working in the criminal justice system. In my experience, judges and magistrates generally get sentences right, but it would be naive in the extreme to believe that that is always the case—it simply is not. Sometimes our courts get things wrong and impose sentences that are unduly lenient, and it is wrong that in most cases absolutely nothing can be done about it. We should not be telling victims of a serious crime who have had their suffering compounded by a pathetic sentence that there is nothing that can be done, but that is exactly what happens today. It is something of a cliché, but we need to see the scales of justice balance—they should not favour one side or the other, if possible. That is not the case now in appeals against sentence. That needs to change.

During the previous Parliament, I sponsored a private Member’s Bill to widen the scope of situations in which the prosecution could appeal against lenient sentences. Unfortunately, that Bill did not make it on to the statute books, but I was pleased to ensure that the Conservative party manifesto included a commitment to tackle the issue. I am sure that the Solicitor General knows every word of the Conservative party manifesto, but for those who are unaware of it, page 60 of the manifesto specifies that

“To tackle those cases where judges get it wrong, we will extend the scope of the Unduly Lenient Scheme, so a wider range of sentences can be challenged.”

That was the wording of the manifesto that Conservative candidates stood on at the recent general election. I hope that the Solicitor General will ensure that that commitment is honoured and that we implement this extension in a timely manner.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we had an animal cruelty case where a father and two sons were sentenced but the judge could not give a custodial sentence, even though he wanted to. Sometimes we have an opposite effect to the one the hon. Gentleman describes. Is it not also important to have laws that can actually punish people for doing wrong things?