Seòmar agus comataidhean

Yes, and that has been raised with the cabinet secretary in relation to the Victims, Witnesses, and Justice Reform (Scotland) Bill. I believe that the Criminal Justice Committee completed stage 2 of that bill just before the Easter recess. Jamie Greene lodged amendments in that regard, and the cabinet secretary has agreed to work with him on the matter. I think that it was said that the process will be quite slow and staggered, but that is a matter for the cabinet secretary, because she is working on the matter of victim impact statements with Jamie Greene.

As I said, it is a very emotive issue for anyone who has a pet, whether it is a dog or any other pet. Having been in my role and had this portfolio for two years, and having extensively gone through dog legislation and the XL bully situation, I am acutely aware of how emotive dog theft and having to go through things that have happened in the past couple of years has been for families with dogs. So, yes, we consider and take cognisance of the impact.

Yes. Everything is under consideration. We will not say no.

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.

The Scottish Government notes that the bill would make the theft of an assistance dog an aggravated offence. As a result, the court would be required to consider whether the sentence given should be enhanced to reflect the significance of taking an assistance dog. That is one of the issues that the committee will be required to carefully consider as the bill is scrutinised. I note from Mr Golden’s letter to the committee of 18 April that he had engaged with stakeholders such as Guide Dogs Forfar, the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Dogs Trust to inform the proposal.

I would like to know more from Maurice Golden about the evidence base to support and justify the position that the emotional impact on victims is not sufficiently considered during sentencing under current law. In the committee’s evidence-taking session on 26 March, the representatives from Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service highlighted that the police

“would have to be able to demonstrate that the accused knew that the dog was an assistance dog to be able to prove the aggravation.”

At the same evidence session, Stuart Munro from the Law Society of Scotland was also clear that

“the sentencing process is already structured in a way that should allow”

information about the impact of the theft of an assistance dog

“to be properly taken into account.”—[Official Report, Rural Affairs and Islands Committee, 26 March 2025; c 20-21.]

If somebody actively seeks to steal an assistance dog, our existing law already reflects that as being worthy of a more serious penalty. We are interested in hearing Mr Golden’s views on that when you take evidence from him.

I will bring in Mr Wilson.

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.

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.