Discussion
9mm said:
Seems to be missing the permanent bit to me.
No, I have already stated that the law determined (when I did criminal law many moons ago) that treating chattels as your own passes this threshold. Or do you think Joyriders can say "Nah mate, just borrowing it, I'll give it back later"...And a cat is indeed owned by a person in law. That the owner is not responsible for its actions is also the law.
[quote=Who me ?]
^^^Martin4x4 said:
What is to stop you, you ask.
The Theft Act for a start.
Nice ,one, but for that to apply, the cat has to be "owned", and when you ask about cat fouling ,the answer is always "it's not an owned pet, but a wild animal". To me it seems cat owners want it both ways- to have a pet and not be responsible for it's actions. I keep on getting told "it's up to you to keep it out ,or deter it ", but when I do it humanely with a jug of water, the owner turns into a feral animal .One in question I don't want using my garden is a she ,which I note is attracting a lot of tom cat attention at her house one reason I don't want it pee ing in my garden ,as this will attract a lot of fully active Toms who'se pee stinks. I could just let my speyed /chipped / tagged /inoculated and wormed little terrier out , but there's a slim chance that she might get hurt, and a greater chance that she might defend herself and hurt another animal, as she has 500 years of vermin prevention built in. That is also something I don't want, as the only winner is the vet. So cat owners ,DECIDE- is it a pet, you own /look after/feed and home, or a wild animal . You can no longer have it both ways. The Theft Act for a start.
Strange post.
Of course its theft, because a cat is owned, but it it a pet which is allowed to roam and I believe that there is relevant legal precedent. So cat owners don't have to decide the principle is established.
You get a similar scenario where I live with pheasants and deer, both owned by the estate, both allowed to roam (often have deer spoor in my garden), but if I take them, then I am committing a crime.
TBH cats don't create a huge amount of mess, we have 3 cats and they use our garden, yet I rarely come across the evidence. The wood pigeons create more mess than the cats.
The chances are that the unspeyed female and the associated toms are feral as responsible cat owners have them neutered. As with anything, you cant tar all owners with the brush of the irresponsible.
Dog owners often say "I can't let my dog roam, why should a cat be allowed to roam", well the answer is obvious, the average dog is quite a bit larger than the average cat so makes more mess plus it doesn't seem to mind doing it on pavements etc, dogs are pack animals so will get together this can cause all sorts of issues, dogs are more prone to attacking people and especially the larger ones can do much more damage.
Cats are property and not livestock, so humanely trapping it with the intention of returning it to the rightful owner is in line with the Theft Act in my eyes (IANAL). The grey area would only be if the cat has a collar on, in which case you know it's owned. If it doesn't then it could be feral and should have a trip to the vets to see if it has a microchip.
Please bear in mind that people have only suggested the trap to be used after deterrents have failed. I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to try and locate the owner of a nuisance pet?
Please bear in mind that people have only suggested the trap to be used after deterrents have failed. I don't think it's an entirely unreasonable thing to try and locate the owner of a nuisance pet?
A single cat, or even a few fouling are unlikley to be considered a nuisance in law
In Brief - Legal Website said:
The law of nuisance
Where animals are kept in such a manner or in such circumstances as to cause material discomfort or annoyance to the public in general or to a particular person the keeping of such animals may amount to a “nuisance”.
Where the public in general are subjected to the nuisance it is referred to as a “public nuisance”. Court proceedings for public nuisances are generally instigated by local authorities through the Criminal Courts (the Magistrate’s Court or the Crown Court). Public nuisances are punishable by fines and/ or imprisonment.
Sometimes public nuisances are described as “statutory nuisances”. This is where there is a specific act of parliament (a “statute”) which makes provision for a particular type of nuisance.
An example of a statutory nuisance can be found in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a local authority has the power to prosecute a person where an animal is “kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance”.
Where a particular individual is subjected to the nuisance it is referred to as a “private nuisance”. Court proceedings for private nuisances are brought by individuals through the Civil Courts (the County Court or the High Court). Where a Civil Court is satisfied that a nuisance has occurred it may award damages (compensation) to the Claimant (the person bringing the claim) and may grant an injunction requiring the Defendant (the person against whom the claim has been brought) requiring them to stop the nuisance.
It is the function of the Courts to decide whether, in a particular case, the keeping of animals in the manner in which they are kept or in the circumstances in which they are kept, amounts to a nuisance. Since the law of nuisance only applies where there is “material” discomfort or annoyance the Courts are unlikely to grant an injunction in relation to a nuisance relating to the fouling by cats unless the fouling is on a substantial scale, for example, where a very large number of cats are kept by one particular person.
Where animals are kept in such a manner or in such circumstances as to cause material discomfort or annoyance to the public in general or to a particular person the keeping of such animals may amount to a “nuisance”.
Where the public in general are subjected to the nuisance it is referred to as a “public nuisance”. Court proceedings for public nuisances are generally instigated by local authorities through the Criminal Courts (the Magistrate’s Court or the Crown Court). Public nuisances are punishable by fines and/ or imprisonment.
Sometimes public nuisances are described as “statutory nuisances”. This is where there is a specific act of parliament (a “statute”) which makes provision for a particular type of nuisance.
An example of a statutory nuisance can be found in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 a local authority has the power to prosecute a person where an animal is “kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance”.
Where a particular individual is subjected to the nuisance it is referred to as a “private nuisance”. Court proceedings for private nuisances are brought by individuals through the Civil Courts (the County Court or the High Court). Where a Civil Court is satisfied that a nuisance has occurred it may award damages (compensation) to the Claimant (the person bringing the claim) and may grant an injunction requiring the Defendant (the person against whom the claim has been brought) requiring them to stop the nuisance.
It is the function of the Courts to decide whether, in a particular case, the keeping of animals in the manner in which they are kept or in the circumstances in which they are kept, amounts to a nuisance. Since the law of nuisance only applies where there is “material” discomfort or annoyance the Courts are unlikely to grant an injunction in relation to a nuisance relating to the fouling by cats unless the fouling is on a substantial scale, for example, where a very large number of cats are kept by one particular person.
Jasandjules said:
LucreLout said:
My plod mate advises you should only seek legal advice from a lawyer and not the police, due to some of his colleagues not having the fullest grasp of a very extensive subject.
But I suspect it would be fine. I'm returning the cat via a convenient means. There's no treating it as if I owned it. Removing a pest / rodent from my garden isn't a crime or cat traps wouldn't be legal. Harming it might be, but I absolutely don't consider that fair game.
Your plod friend is correct and historically I have advised officers as to specific legislation but that was in a time when I actually studied it...Now it is but a hazy memory. But I can assure you that in this case I am willing to bet your plod mate will be able to tell you that you would be nicked for it. But I suspect it would be fine. I'm returning the cat via a convenient means. There's no treating it as if I owned it. Removing a pest / rodent from my garden isn't a crime or cat traps wouldn't be legal. Harming it might be, but I absolutely don't consider that fair game.
A cat is neither a pest nor a rodent, in law. Cat traps are not for neighbours to collect cats cra***ng in their garden and dropping them somewhere else.
Nonetheless, OP I do not suggest you follow the advice of cat trapping and removal. A super soaker with lemon juice or orange peels however, fair enough.
I'd imagine that a cat who has been trapped and then soaked with lemon juice wouldn't make a hasty re-appearance though...
Jasandjules said:
No, I have already stated that the law determined (when I did criminal law many moons ago) that treating chattels as your own passes this threshold. Or do you think Joyriders can say "Nah mate, just borrowing it, I'll give it back later"...
And a cat is indeed owned by a person in law. That the owner is not responsible for its actions is also the law.
Treating it as my own would involve some gaffer tape on the paws and a Gillette over the rest of the cat, followed by a written warning on the freshly bald beast for the owner to resolve the issue. (this is an exaggeration to make a point - don't do this)And a cat is indeed owned by a person in law. That the owner is not responsible for its actions is also the law.
Taking it to someone who can trace the owner is not treating it as my own. That it is more convenient for me to do this where I work rather than where I live, really is the owners problem. An hours drive to collect their unharmed pet from a place of safety, at its 3rd incursion and trapping would not seem unreasonable.
Edited to change "gaffer rape" to the less harsh "gaffer tape".
Jasandjules said:
9mm said:
Seems to be missing the permanent bit to me.
No, I have already stated that the law determined (when I did criminal law many moons ago) that treating chattels as your own passes this threshold. Or do you think Joyriders can say "Nah mate, just borrowing it, I'll give it back later"...
As a slightly more on topic comment, it amazes me how strongly this debate has shown people sit in different camps (cat lovers v not cat lovers) and how each side's view of reasonableness is so heavily informed by which side they are on!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff