Chamber and committees

Not at that stage. I want to consider the letter and then also consider the committee’s stage 1 report.

That section of the bill proposes that dog theft becomes a prescribed offence and that any court that the case is heard in is deemed to be a prescribed court. I know that that was raised in the previous evidence session on the bill, but victim impact statements are not currently available in any summary court case. At that evidence session, Laura Buchan also informed the committee that the victim impact statement scheme currently relates only to solemn cases, which means cases that are prosecuted in the sheriff and jury courts or in the High Court. The scheme also does not apply to all solemn cases; it currently includes only those cases that involve violence, sexual offences and housebreaking.

The consultation on the bill did not ask any specific questions about allowing victims to make statements about the effect of the crime or of their going to court. Although I note Mr Golden’s comments in his letter, the Scottish Government considers that it requires further information from Mr Golden on why that would be an appropriate approach, including on how that would fit with the existing approaches to the use of such statements in the criminal justice system.

To be honest, dog theft has not really come up in my engagement. When the XL bully issue arose in 2023, I had regular engagement with all stakeholders across the UK on a monthly basis. Because of the XL bully issue, the heightened state around the issue and everything that has happened since, that was the main topic at the summit. However, it was not only about XL bullies. We were looking at the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, which is reserved, and there is also quite a bit of legislation in Scotland. We looked at how we could tie that up moving forward, which is one of the longer-term aims of the advisory group.

During the Easter break, I watched the evidence session in which that issue was brought up. The Scottish Government does not have any views on that. The Scottish Parliament information centre briefing states:

“Theft is defined as the taking and/or appropriating of property belonging to another, without the owner's consent, with the intention to deprive them of its use. Abduction is a common law offence in Scotland and is defined as carrying off or confining a person against their will and without legal authority.”

We are comfortable with the offence of dog theft being used in the bill, but it will be up to the committee to scrutinise that and see whether it is comfortable with it, too.

I have not been able to look at that response. As I have said, we saw the letter only yesterday, and I thank the clerks for advising my team that it was on the website.

I will hand over to Jim Wilson, who has a lot of experience, over many years, with Scottish Government dog legislation.

When giving evidence to the committee in March, the Law Society of Scotland indicated that the number of sentencing guidelines in Scotland is relatively small and that the Scottish Sentencing Council is seeking to develop new guidelines within its available resources. The Scottish Government has the ability to ask the Sentencing Council to consider preparing guidelines, but it is for the independent council to decide whether it does, or can do, so. I know that, at the moment, draft guidelines are in preparation in relation to rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse, and the Sentencing Council’s work programme for the year ahead is really busy.

In saying that, the Scottish Government is interested in understanding whether Mr Golden had approached the Sentencing Council in that regard. We are happy to consider that specific suggestion further, if that is wanted, as the bill progresses.

That is a really important point that was raised in the evidence session in March. Procurator fiscal Laura Buchan wrote to the committee on 9 April to provide further information on a couple of issues, including the defences that have been set out in the bill. The letter from the COPFS noted that the offence does not apply where a person who previously lived in the same household with the dog takes or keeps the dog, which covers the scenario in which a couple separates following a domestic dispute and one partner keeps the dog.

As the committee heard in the evidence session on 26 March, caution was suggested when legislating for a scenario that might involve a dispute over proof of ownership in the context of criminal proceedings. In scenarios that involve domestic abuse, there are existing legislative provisions that allow for prosecution in relation to the taking of a dog following a relationship. Therefore, those types of prosecutions can already happen.

I noted from Maurice Golden’s letter to the committee, which we saw yesterday, that he remains of the view that it is entirely appropriate for the bill to include defences in respect of the breakdown of a relationship. He goes on to say that, if the committee were to take a contrary view, he would be happy to look at the matter again. His letter, which as I have said we saw only yesterday, does not provide any further evidence to support his view that the bill should include a defence in respect of a breakdown of a relationship. However, I have no doubt that the committee will wish to seek further views from Mr Golden himself when he comes before the committee on 21 May.

Yes.

Good morning to the committee. First, I appreciate that dog theft is a very emotive issue, and I have had meetings with Mr Golden in the run-up to this meeting, which is why the Scottish Government is taking a neutral position at this stage. We received Mr Golden’s response only yesterday morning, so we have not had a chance to go through all the responses in detail.

On the issue of the stand-alone offence, the need for a specific offence of dog theft has been questioned with the Law Society of Scotland and other representatives in the legal system. The common law offence of theft already covers pet theft, and the penalty goes all the way up to a life sentence if a case is tried in the High Court. It can therefore be argued that existing laws are in place, with appropriate sentencing powers. The courts have wide discretion to consider the facts and circumstances when sentencing, which includes taking into account the harm that might arise from a dog theft, such as the impact on the dog’s health and wellbeing and the distress that is caused to the owner. I am confident that the committee will carefully scrutinise the bill to assess what evidence there is of a gap in the law and the necessity for the bill’s provisions.

As I said, stage 2 of that bill has just finished and the cabinet secretary has committed to looking at victim impact statements. I will ask Jim Wilson to comment on how that could impact section 3 of this bill.