Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is It Legal??


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
69 replies to this topic

#31 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:47 am

There's no protection in law for cats that are on someone else's property. If cat owners don't want their cats to be shot then they should keep them indoors. This myth that if they are wearing a collar then you are committing an act of criminal damage is nonsense. There is no legal obligation to report any vehicle strikes involving cats. If they were viewed as a persons property, in law, then a reporting system, as is in place for dogs, cattle, horses, etc, would be in place. I think you'll find that the act of allowing your cat to roam, unchecked, is wilful abandonment and your rights are diminished due to your duty of care being discharged.   

 

 

 

You should listen to Matt.

 

Just because someone else's property is on your property doesn't mean that it ceases to be their property. You are under an obligation to return it in good condition be it a football or an pet animal such as a cat.

 

If you fail to return it you commit a criminal act of theft (a dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it) and the civil tort of conversion (where you treat someone else's property as your own - which opens up the way for you to be liable in damages. Conversion does not require theft).

 

If you damage it you commit criminal damage (A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another intending to destroy or damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged shall be guilty of an offence). The only lawful excuse here for shooting domestic animals that I'm aware of is dogs with a shotgun to prevent livestock damage and only then as a last resort.

 

Demanding a payment for the return of someone else's property constitutes blackmail.

 

I'm guessing your basing your opinion on cats on the positions of deer. But deer are different as they are treated as wild animals and thus no-ones property.


Edited by Alsone, 15 July 2013 - 09:52 am.

  • Matt likes this

#32 Malt

Malt

    sheep bothering mod

  • Moderator
  • 24,969 posts
  • Location:The Wild West (Pembs)

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:49 am

:laugh: I know, they ain't very reliable when it comes to knowing the laws they're paid to be upholding.. :doh: Mind, it's understandable really, even lawyers and solicitors have to look things up and they work with the law on a day to day basis and have to spend years learning about it before they qualify..  



#33 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:51 am

 

I had an accident with a dog a few years back, when I phoned the police to let them know they told me all I had to do was phone the council so they could remove it, it was nothing to do with them.. :blink:

 

If you want to know about the law, the last person to ask is a copper  :whistling:

 

I have to agree!

 

I ran a pedestrian down a few years ago, or rather he ran off the pavement without looking and ran into the SIDE of my car. He suffered minor cuts but was otherwise OK.

 

Any accident involving injury has to be reported to the police within 24 hours or you as the driver commit a criminal offence. I went to my local police station and the police originally refused to take a statement (read they didn't want the paperwork). I had to go back later and literally insist that I make a statement to get them to accept one. Had I not done that I could have been prosecuted even though they refused to take one (whether or not that would cut it as a defence I don't know. But try proving it. Bet they would have said I never attended the station.


Edited by Alsone, 15 July 2013 - 09:57 am.


#34 Malt

Malt

    sheep bothering mod

  • Moderator
  • 24,969 posts
  • Location:The Wild West (Pembs)

Posted 15 July 2013 - 09:54 am

Just doing a bit of reading online, apparently the reason you have to report an accident with dog is because it's classed in law as a working animal whether it's a pet or not, and so classed as a capital asset the same as a horse, donkey or an ox.. :laugh: Don't see many working oxen these days, do you? :laugh:



#35 hutchey

hutchey

    Extreme Hunter

  • Donator
  • 877 posts
  • Location:Tenterden

Posted 15 July 2013 - 10:19 am

^^only in the houses of parliament^^   :whistling:


  • Malt likes this

#36 ferrets88

ferrets88

    Rookie Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Location:lincolnshire

Posted 15 July 2013 - 12:12 pm

Don't worry about the cats they are feral we know the owners used to have cats but claim not to now and there always having kittens round the farm and you can normally find them around the site. About someone saying they must be big cats the chicken are barely a month old when there let out to range so the chicken aren't that big. There was chicken wire and electric fencing around the entire farm but has been ripped to bits by people robbing diesel and work haven't had chance to get us the bits to replace it, I have finally managed to persuade work to put cameras up so that could help us prove the dogs are doing damage. The traps wont be set for dogs there mainly for fox but if the dogs/cats are feeding off the chicken then eventually they could end up in them and then be handed over to the police for them to sort out.



#37 beast

beast

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,642 posts

Posted 15 July 2013 - 10:19 pm

be cheaper and more effective to get the fence fixed than get cameras i would have thought.......



#38 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:03 pm

be cheaper and more effective to get the fence fixed than get cameras i would have thought.......

 

Both would be better still then you could capture those who are damaging the fence on video.

 

You could save on video installation costs though with just a camcorder and an investment of some time if you know roughly when the dogs are appearing. You'll also get a better result than with a fixed CCTV camera where the dogs will probably be distant. A camcorder on a tripod will allow you to zoom and pan and get good shots of the dogs both on the property and returning to the owners gardens - an advantage if one continuos shot.

 

As for damaged fencing, why not put an outer fence of barbed wire (minimum 3 strands or 3 strands of barbed separated by 2 strands of electric (to keep livestock in of course as no doubt you're planning on getting something other than chickens ;)) which gives you a 5 strand fence with no means of squeezing between the barbed because of the electric) and then an inner fence of chicken wire? You could even dig a moat (read drainage channel) either inside or outside of the barbed wire provided its still on your land. Not many people like muddy water. All it takes is a mechancial digger or tractor with digger arm and some time.

 

Note your obligations re warning signs on all of this....as children and drainage ditches / barbed wire / electric fences don't mix. I can't see a porblem around a farm with any of this, but always take advice from a relevent body eg Farmers Union or other country body.

 

BTW, if putting barbed wire leave some play in it. Tight wire is easy to get over. Loose wire with a bit of play sways around if you try to climb it and so is much harder to get over. Well known amongst those in the country.


Edited by Alsone, 15 July 2013 - 11:06 pm.

  • beast likes this

#39 ferrets88

ferrets88

    Rookie Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Location:lincolnshire

Posted 15 July 2013 - 11:19 pm

 

 

They are paying for the fencing to be fixed, there was a barb wire fence but that's been cut then looks like a truck or vans drive through the electric fence and chicken wire. A camcorder out of the question as we're not getting problems everyday just now and then but when we do its always a lot of birds and work can think again if they want me sitting there filming 24hrs a day.



#40 Malt

Malt

    sheep bothering mod

  • Moderator
  • 24,969 posts
  • Location:The Wild West (Pembs)

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:21 am

 

be cheaper and more effective to get the fence fixed than get cameras i would have thought.......

 

Both would be better still then you could capture those who are damaging the fence on video.

 

You could save on video installation costs though with just a camcorder and an investment of some time if you know roughly when the dogs are appearing. You'll also get a better result than with a fixed CCTV camera where the dogs will probably be distant. A camcorder on a tripod will allow you to zoom and pan and get good shots of the dogs both on the property and returning to the owners gardens - an advantage if one continuos shot.

 

As for damaged fencing, why not put an outer fence of barbed wire (minimum 3 strands or 3 strands of barbed separated by 2 strands of electric (to keep livestock in of course as no doubt you're planning on getting something other than chickens ;)) which gives you a 5 strand fence with no means of squeezing between the barbed because of the electric) and then an inner fence of chicken wire? You could even dig a moat (read drainage channel) either inside or outside of the barbed wire provided its still on your land. Not many people like muddy water. All it takes is a mechancial digger or tractor with digger arm and some time.

 

Note your obligations re warning signs on all of this....as children and drainage ditches / barbed wire / electric fences don't mix. I can't see a porblem around a farm with any of this, but always take advice from a relevent body eg Farmers Union or other country body.

 

BTW, if putting barbed wire leave some play in it. Tight wire is easy to get over. Loose wire with a bit of play sways around if you try to climb it and so is much harder to get over. Well known amongst those in the country.

 

 

I'd love to see someone try to implement all that if the poultry farm is anything like the size of the one down the road from me.. :yes: They have hundreds of sheds spread out over about 5 or 6 square miles and probably a few hundred thousand birds there at any one time, all free range.. They loose god knows how many birds to foxes, BOP and great black backed gulls, not to mention the amount of feed they loose to other birds like starlings, corvids and other gull species.. 



#41 paulus

paulus

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,388,607 posts
  • Location:down the shed

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:34 am

“It is clearly laid down in ‘Addison on Torts,’ that a person is not justified in killing his neighbour’s cat, or dog, which he finds on his land, unless the animal is in the act of doing some injurious act which can only be prevented by its slaughter”

 

 a person killing a cat will be prosecuted for a criminal act under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

 

animal on animal killings are different in law 



#42 danw

danw

    Extreme Hunter

  • Donator
  • 3,132 posts

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:40 am

It is clearly laid down in Addison on Torts, that a person is not justified in killing his neighbours cat, or dog, which he finds on his land, unless the animal is in the act of doing some injurious act which can only be prevented by its slaughter
 
 a person killing a cat will be prosecuted for a criminal act under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
 
animal on animal killings are different in law 


So by that as long as it isnt thy neighbours then its game on lol
  • paulus and hutchey like this

#43 paulus

paulus

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,388,607 posts
  • Location:down the shed

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:45 am

 

It is clearly laid down in Addison on Torts, that a person is not justified in killing his neighbours cat, or dog, which he finds on his land, unless the animal is in the act of doing some injurious act which can only be prevented by its slaughter
 
 a person killing a cat will be prosecuted for a criminal act under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
 
animal on animal killings are different in law 


So by that as long as it isnt thy neighbours then its game on lol

 

no wonder were fooked Shakespeare has a lot to answer for  :laugh:  :laugh:



#44 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 16 July 2013 - 07:49 am

@ Danw, Nope on the neighbour point.

 

1. Torts are civil actions. Tort and criminal are entirely separate so something that can be a tort is not necessarily a crime. eg. a claim for an injury resulting from an accident. An injury resulting from a pure accident is not a usually a crime but you can be sued on it if you were to blame. Equally but rarely, it can happen the other way around (I'm trying to think of an example here of the other way around but the only one I can only think of is the example Paulas has given above where it would appear from that quote that killing a cat may not in some circumstances constitute a tort but may nevertheless constitute a crime).

 

2. For tort the definition of "neighbour" is a legal definition given in Donahue vs Stevenson which was pretty much the founding case of modern tort law.

 

Your neighbour is: "persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

 

So in other words, your neighbour is anyone that you ought reasonably to have considered would have been affected by your action or failure to act (the latter applying to circumstances where you were required to do so).

 

Ommissions catch many people out because there is a mistaken widely held belief that if you don't do anything you can't be liable eg if you don't clear snow from a path, when in actual fact you can be under a duty to alleviate a danger and are liable if you fail to do so.


Edited by Alsone, 16 July 2013 - 08:02 am.


#45 Alsone

Alsone

    Extreme Hunter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,266 posts
  • Location:Middle of nowhere

Posted 16 July 2013 - 08:01 am

 


They are paying for the fencing to be fixed, there was a barb wire fence but that's been cut then looks like a truck or vans drive through the electric fence and chicken wire. A camcorder out of the question as we're not getting problems everyday just now and then but when we do its always a lot of birds and work can think again if they want me sitting there filming 24hrs a day.

 

Ah ok. If its car or vans then CCTV is ideal provided you ahve the right lens to catch the number plate.

 

I'd love to see someone try to implement all that if the poultry farm is anything like the size of the one down the road from me.. :yes: They have hundreds of sheds spread out over about 5 or 6 square miles and probably a few hundred thousand birds there at any one time, all free range.. They loose god knows how many birds to foxes, BOP and great black backed gulls, not to mention the amount of feed they loose to other birds like starlings, corvids and other gull species.. 

 

 

Well I would presume that if he already has it fenced by chicken wire, it would be feasable to add barbed wire. A ditch would also prevent vehicles ramming the fence (could be a dry ditch if your worried about drowning kiddies) or even a raised mound.

 

It juts depends on how far he wants to take it and how much loss vs cost is involved.


Edited by Alsone, 16 July 2013 - 08:04 am.



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users