The legal status of a neighbour's cat.
gb
one from killing a neighbour's cat when it is in one's garden ?
Assume at all times that the manner of execution is not cruel in any
way, even by RSPCA standards.
In other words, this question has nothing to do with cruelty to
animals but more to do with the nature of the cat-owner's property or
possessory relationship with a domesticated cat; ie what exactly in
law is a cat.
The various gardening and local authority websites suggest that
a) it is apparently law that a cat-owner is not liable for damage
caused by a roaming cat because it is deemed a "free-spirit" (?),
b) steps to prevent a cat making use of another's garden must be
defensive,
c) feral cats can be killed but not domesticated ones,
d) a neighbour's overhanging branches can be lopped and returned but
not a neighbour's cat
e) you do not have to stop and report to a cat-owner that you have run
over the cat because a cat is not livestock,
f) the owner can kill the cat humanely at any time with complete
impunity.
It seems a cat, or pet, is an odd sort of possession. Or is it just a
chattel ?
The argument arose because it was suggested that the urban myth that
there is a prohibition on killing a neighbour's roaming cat was solely
based on cruelty arising from the method used. In other words, if the
method of execution was humane, the only problem is that interference
with the neighbour's property may lead to a civil claim for
compensation, assuming that the corpus delictii is returned to the
neighbour, like the branches.
The counter argument is that a criminal (as well as civil) offence is
committed if you deliberately kill another's pet, specifically a cat,
irrespective of the humane method used. I suspect the counter
argument is right but have no authority. Any statute spring to
mind ?
Ben Harris
gb <gad...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>The counter argument is that a criminal (as well as civil) offence is
>committed if you deliberately kill another's pet, specifically a cat,
>irrespective of the humane method used. I suspect the counter
>argument is right but have no authority. Any statute spring to
>mind ?
The Criminal Damage Act 1971 seems to be a pretty good bet. S10(1)
explicitly includes tamed and captive animals in the definition of
"property", and s1(1) then makes damaging such property without lawful
excuse an offence.
--
Ben Harris
smr
> In article <4458060a-d818-4f17-8981-f3977543b...@c28g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> gb <gadb...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >The counter argument is that a criminal (as well as civil) offence is
> >committed if you deliberately kill another's pet, specifically a cat,
> >irrespective of the humane method used. I suspect the counter
> >argument is right but have no authority. Any statute spring to
> >mind ?
>
> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 seems to be a pretty good bet. S10(1)
> explicitly includes tamed and captive animals in the definition of
> "property", and s1(1) then makes damaging such property without lawful
> excuse an offence.
>
> --
> Ben Harris
In other news, don't kill cats as a way to get back at your neighbour.
For one it's how serial killers get started.
RobertL
I wonder who would become the serial killer, the cat killer or its
owner?
Robert
Maurice
What about humanely capturing it. Then driving it a hundred miles away
and letting it walk home if it feels like it?
--
M.
gb
> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 seems to be a pretty good bet. S10(1)
> explicitly includes tamed and captive animals in the definition of
> "property", and s1(1) then makes damaging such property without lawful
> excuse an offence.
Thank you for your response.
Yes, we tended towards thinking a cat was a sort of chattel. After
all an active racehorse is not livestock but can certainly be left in
a will like a chattel such as furniture, jewelry or a picture. And a
motor car chattel that has been keyed by a Vandal can involve the
CDAs. However, I quote your Act in part :
Section 10 (1) In this Act "property" means property of a tangible
nature, whether real or personal, including money and-- (a)
including wild creatures which have been tamed OR are ordinarily kept
in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcasses if, but
only if, they have been reduced into possession which has not been
lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into
possession; but (b) not including mushrooms growing wild on any land
or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land. For
the purposes of this subsection "mushroom" includes any fungus and
"plant" includes any shrub or tree.
Now the question I have for you is whether that OR is disjunctive or
conjunctive. Because a neighbour's cat has never been a wild animal.
Never. So does your Act apply ?
Another Scroedinger's cat question: the local authority web-sites say
that you cannot harm or SNARE a neighbour's cat. That is cruelty, and
heaven forfend. But it says nothing about a live-capture cage. These
are recognised as humane by every animal charity in existence, even
Big-Char. So assume you find a neighbour's cat in your LCC. You post
it humanely to the cat protection league in the Orkneys where as a
free spirit it is warmly welcomed. It is looked after splendidly.
And you advise your neighbour of that Orkney address. Have you
committed a criminal offence as opposed to a civil interference with a
(supposed) chattel ?
I am still not sure a cat is a chattel. I particularly like the idea
that the law recognizes existentially a "free spirit cat". But it is
not livestock, not a " Dangerous Dog" Act so what is it ? Must be a
chattel surely ?
--
Giles (sorry I started anon because of virtual quantomness, not
intent)
GP Hardy
> What about humanely capturing it. Then driving it a hundred miles away and
> letting it walk home if it feels like it?
Or not...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8174850.stm
steve robinson
It depends a lot on what the cat is doing at the time
If its attacking your prized coy carp , ferrets , chickens , fowl etc
then you are within your rights to dispatch the creature humanly if
its just digging up your flowers and crapping everywhere then your
only actions are defensive
Ste
>
> The various gardening and local authority websites suggest that
>
> a) it is apparently law that a cat-owner is not liable for damage
> caused by a roaming cat because it is deemed a "free-spirit" (?),
This is not strictly true. A cat owner (and indeed, the owner of any
animal) can be liable for property damage and nuisance under certain
circumstances. However liability is not strict, and you must show how
the owner is responsible for the damage beyond the mere fact that they
own the cat responsible.
One thing I would say is that people do of course have the right to
enjoy their properties, and that involves having reasonable
relationships with both domestic and wild animals. If you wish to
totally exclude wildlife from your garden, then the onus is primarily
on you to install sufficient security and deterrents.
> b) steps to prevent a cat making use of another's garden must be
> defensive,
Basically, yes.
> c) feral cats can be killed but not domesticated ones,
Yes.
> d) a neighbour's overhanging branches can be lopped and returned but
> not a neighbour's cat
You certainly cannot "lop" the cat, no. You can however capture the
cat and return it.
> e) you do not have to stop and report to a cat-owner that you have run
> over the cat because a cat is not livestock,
No.
> f) the owner can kill the cat humanely at any time with complete
> impunity.
Yes.
> It seems a cat, or pet, is an odd sort of possession. Or is it just a
> chattel ?
Never mind the jargon. The law is fairly simple in this respect.
Domesticated animals such as cats amount to "property". As with any
other kind of property, you cannot destroy other people's property at
will. There are also additional protections for certain animals (owned
or wild), including cats, which is that you cannot treat them
inhumanely. The effect of these two laws is that cats have virtual
impunity as long as their behaviour and presence is "reasonable" and
consistent with that expected of normal cats.
> The argument arose because it was suggested that the urban myth that
> there is a prohibition on killing a neighbour's roaming cat was solely
> based on cruelty arising from the method used. In other words, if the
> method of execution was humane, the only problem is that interference
> with the neighbour's property may lead to a civil claim for
> compensation, assuming that the corpus delictii is returned to the
> neighbour, like the branches.
Absolutely not. It is generally unlawful to kill an owned cat.
> The counter argument is that a criminal (as well as civil) offence is
> committed if you deliberately kill another's pet, specifically a cat,
> irrespective of the humane method used. I suspect the counter
> argument is right but have no authority. Any statute spring to
> mind ?
Theft Act 1968 will probably be the authority on "treating the cat as
owner" (which includes disposing of the cat in one way or another). If
you merely cause harm to, or the death of, the cat (for example, by
shooting, poisoning, etc.), then the authority is probably Criminal
Damage Act 1971.
sid
> I am still not sure a cat is a chattel. I particularly like the idea
> that the law recognizes existentially a "free spirit cat". But it is
> not livestock, not a " Dangerous Dog" Act so what is it ? Must be a
> chattel surely ?
> --
> Giles (sorry I started anon because of virtual quantomness, not
> intent)
>
>
It is a semi-domesticated animal, unlike a dog, which is considered
domesticated, making the owner responsible for it's behaviour.
sid
Ste
I'm not sure the word "including" also means "and limited to". The
fact is that domestic animals are property, irrespective of the
definition given here. Moreover, the clause "wild creatures which have
been tamed" may mean a species of creature which are now universally
tame (like dogs), as opposed to a requirement that the specific animal
in question must once have been wild and since tamed.
> Another Scroedinger's cat question: the local authority web-sites say
> that you cannot harm or SNARE a neighbour's cat.
You can "snare" it in the sense of capturing it humanely. But you
cannot snare it in the sense of a "snare-trap" involving a noose which
the animal will tug at and usually harm itself.
> So assume you find a neighbour's cat in your LCC. You post
> it humanely to the cat protection league in the Orkneys where as a
> free spirit it is warmly welcomed. It is looked after splendidly.
> And you advise your neighbour of that Orkney address. Have you
> committed a criminal offence as opposed to a civil interference with a
> (supposed) chattel ?
This is likely to be seen as "treating as owner", I'm afraid - which
means theft.
> I am still not sure a cat is a chattel.
Almost all kinds of property are chattels.
> I particularly like the idea
> that the law recognizes existentially a "free spirit cat". But it is
> not livestock, not a " Dangerous Dog" Act so what is it ? Must be a
> chattel surely ?
All are chattels. Cats are chattels. Dogs are chattels. Livestock are
chattels (hence the etymology of the word, from "cattle", which would
once have been one of the primary types of personal property requiring
protection under the law). The kitchen sink is not a chattel however -
it is a fixture.
Ste
wrote:
>
> It depends a lot on what the cat is doing at the time
>
> If its attacking your prized coy carp , ferrets , chickens , fowl etc
> then you are within your rights to dispatch the creature humanly if
> its just digging up your flowers and crapping everywhere then your
If it is literally eating the carp, then you'd be entitled to kill it
probably by any means necessary, humane or otherwise, as long as the
suffering inflicted was no more than was immediately necessary in the
circumstances. So for example, you would probably be entitled to stamp
on its head if you grabbed it to stop the attack and it then struck at
you with its claws.
Fredxx
"gb" <gad...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4458060a-d818-4f17...@c28g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
>
> It seems a cat, or pet, is an odd sort of possession. Or is it just a
> chattel ?
>
I'm in a situation where a cat will regularly visit us and is quite at home
with us. We generally don't feed her, but it's clear she spends very little
time with her owner. She's free to leave and come back when she chooses and
has been told off a couple of times for disgracing herself. I now know who
the owner is who said on one occasion he hadn't seen her for a fortnight and
was pleased to find out she was ok.
I don't want the responsibility of a cat, so wouldn't want to own her. But
is there ever a case of ownership by default, where its owner hasn't laid a
reasonable claim on an animal? In this case I now know who the owners are,
but that's only after giving her house room for 3 months or more.
CJM
"GP Hardy" <gareth...@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message
news:p5Ygn.43890$Ym4....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
The cat in question was recently run over and killed. Possibly a quasi-legal
solution, if you were so inclined, providing that you could make the cat sit
still in the middle of the road, of course.
NT
People frequently form very strong bonds with cats. Kill a part of
their family and you may have a neighbour dispute that goes beyond
your wildest dreams. Its a remarkably foolish idea that can make life
absolute hell.
NT
Paul
> Can anyone settle an argument by naming the statute which prohibits
> one from killing a neighbour's cat when it is in one's garden ?
> Assume at all times that the manner of execution is not cruel in any
> way, even by RSPCA standards.
>
Stick it in a box and conduct Schrödinger's experiment on it.
Since it is impossible to decide whether it is alive or dead, it would
be impossible to prove a case against you for killing it...
Martin Bonner
> The
> fact is that domestic animals are property, irrespective of the
> definition given here.
I think we are having the sort of discussion where assertions like
that are /much/ more helpful if you can quote some sort of authority
for them.
Ben Harris
gb <gad...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> The Criminal Damage Act 1971 seems to be a pretty good bet. =A0S10(1)
>> explicitly includes tamed and captive animals in the definition of
>> "property", and s1(1) then makes damaging such property without lawful
>> excuse an offence.
>>Ben Harris
>
>Thank you for your response.
>
>Yes, we tended towards thinking a cat was a sort of chattel. After
>all an active racehorse is not livestock but can certainly be left in
>a will like a chattel such as furniture, jewelry or a picture. And a
>motor car chattel that has been keyed by a Vandal can involve the
>CDAs. However, I quote your Act in part :
>
>Section 10 (1) In this Act "property" means property of a tangible
>nature, whether real or personal, including money and-- (a)
>including wild creatures which have been tamed OR are ordinarily kept
>in captivity, and any other wild creatures or their carcasses if, but
>only if, they have been reduced into possession which has not been
>lost or abandoned or are in the course of being reduced into
>possession; but (b) not including mushrooms growing wild on any land
>or flowers, fruit or foliage of a plant growing wild on any land. For
>the purposes of this subsection "mushroom" includes any fungus and
>"plant" includes any shrub or tree.
>
>Now the question I have for you is whether that OR is disjunctive or
>conjunctive. Because a neighbour's cat has never been a wild animal.
>Never. So does your Act apply ?
If it's never been wild, then I think it's "property of a tangible
nature". Halbury says ("Animals", para 709) "Domestic animals, like
other personal and movable chattels, are the subject of absolute
property." It references Putt v Roster (1682) 2 Mod Rep 318, but I've
not found a copy of that.
>Another Scroedinger's cat question: the local authority web-sites say
>that you cannot harm or SNARE a neighbour's cat. That is cruelty, and
>heaven forfend. But it says nothing about a live-capture cage. These
>are recognised as humane by every animal charity in existence, even
>Big-Char. So assume you find a neighbour's cat in your LCC. You post
>it humanely to the cat protection league in the Orkneys where as a
>free spirit it is warmly welcomed. It is looked after splendidly.
>And you advise your neighbour of that Orkney address. Have you
>committed a criminal offence as opposed to a civil interference with a
>(supposed) chattel ?
Well, if your intent was that the neighbour wouldn't get it back (e.g.
because going to Orkney to fetch it was too much effort) I expect that
would the theft. I'm not sure if it'd be theft if your expectation was
that they _would_ go and fetch it, and I'm pretty confident there isn't
an offence of TWOC'ing a cat.
--
Ben Harris
Tim Jackson
> The
> fact is that domestic animals are property, irrespective of the
> definition given here.
Our cat would disagree. It's a master-servant relationship, and we're
the servants.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Ste
I'm afraid I don't have anything to hand that treats the law relating
to animals, but you should not regard it as doubtful that domestic
pets (of whatever kind) are the legal property of their owners.
Maurice
> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 02:55:04 +0000, Ste wrote...
> > The
> > fact is that domestic animals are property, irrespective of the
> > definition given here.
>
> Our cat would disagree. It's a master-servant relationship, and we're
> the servants.
You might be a servant, I'm a dog person myself :-)
--
M.
NT
> "GP Hardy" <gareth.har...@ntlwrold.com> wrote in message
Sounds like the worst of both worlds. Its a criminal act AND your
neighbour may go postal on you
NT
Owain
> >... So assume you find a neighbour's cat in your LCC. You post
> >it humanely to the cat protection league in the Orkneys ...
> Well, if your intent was that the neighbour wouldn't get it back (e.g.
> because going to Orkney to fetch it was too much effort) I expect that
> would the theft. I'm not sure if it'd be theft if your expectation was
> that they _would_ go and fetch it, and I'm pretty confident there isn't
> an offence of TWOC'ing a cat.
There isn't an offence of TWOCing a car in Scotland (AFAIK) as the
definition of Theft in Scottish law is different.
Apart from breaching the relevant Post Office Regulations, would the
offence of Theft therefore be committed on the cat crossing the
border?
Owain
Steve Walker
> Another Scroedinger's cat question: the local authority web-sites say
> that you cannot harm or SNARE a neighbour's cat. That is cruelty, and
> heaven forfend. But it says nothing about a live-capture cage. These
> are recognised as humane by every animal charity in existence, even
> Big-Char. So assume you find a neighbour's cat in your LCC. You post
> it humanely to the cat protection league in the Orkneys where as a
> free spirit it is warmly welcomed. It is looked after splendidly.
> And you advise your neighbour of that Orkney address. Have you
> committed a criminal offence as opposed to a civil interference with a
> (supposed) chattel ?
How is that different to stealing your neighbour's umbrella and handing it
in to a railway station hundreds of miles away (with the intention that they
will never recover it). Or stealing a farmer's prize cow and dumping it
in the Orkneys for that matter.
In moral terms, and I think legally too, it would be theft of property.
steve robinson
Easy answer run the cat over
CJM
"NT" <meow...@care2.com> wrote in message
news:ab202f4c-13bb-460a...@b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sounds like the worst of both worlds. Its a criminal act AND your
> neighbour may go postal on you
>
"It just jumped out in front of me, guv..."