B1164 - Police Animal Protection bill 2017 (Second Reading)

Watch
This discussion is closed.
adam9317
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Police Animal Protection bill 2017, TSR Libertarian Party (Seconded by Quamquam123 MP)



Image

A
BILL TO
Protect all animals in the police force





BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1- Definitions
(1)A police animal is any animal that assists any police officer in the execution of their duties.
(2)Actual Bodily Harm is defined as any injury which is calculated to interfere with the health or comfort of the victim.

2- Murder of Police Animals
(1)A person commits an offence if they intentionally causes the death of any on duty Police Animal.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 15 years.

3- wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm of Police Animals
(1) A person commits an offence if they unlawfully and maliciously by any means whatsoever wound or cause any grievous bodily harm to any on duty Police Animal with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to any Police animal, or with intent to resist or prevent the lawful apprehension or detainer of any person.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.

4- Assault occasioning bodily harm on a Police Animal
(1) A person commits an offence if they negligently cause any Police Animal actual bodily harm.
(2)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

5- Citation and commencement
(1) This Act extends to the United Kingdom.
(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on Royal Assent
(3) This Act may be referred to as the Police Animal Protection Act 2017

Notes:
People who attack a police animal can be charged under the Criminal Damages Act 1971. This legislation is designed to deal with destruction or damage to property, not animal cruelty. This bill will increase the protection the law offers as well as bring the law closer to what the public would like.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168678

Changes:
Added on duty, added not exceeding and fixed a spelling mistake.


0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
The changes didn't really need a second reading, position unchanged from the first reading: unnecessary, police animals are property and murder aside (how common is this) the maximum penalties are unchanged from the status quo.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The changes didn't really need a second reading, position unchanged from the first reading: unnecessary, police animals are property and murder aside (how common is this) the maximum penalties are unchanged from the status quo.
Really? Then what's the point.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
(Original post by RayApparently)
Really? Then what's the point.
Idk, ask the libers given they're the ones who want to change a 10 year penalty to a 10 year penalty. in the vast majority of cases all this does is redefine police animals to not be property.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Idk, ask the libers given they're the ones who want to change a 10 year penalty to a 10 year penalty. in the vast majority of cases all this does is redefine police animals to not be property.
Gladstone1885 ??
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by RayApparently)
Gladstone1885 ??
Petros had asked me to
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by joecphillips)
Petros had asked me to
Asked you to what?
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by RayApparently)
Asked you to what?
Send it to a second reading
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by joecphillips)
Send it to a second reading
Okay, he's already lost the Brownie point he won last night by requesting pointless second readings

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The changes didn't really need a second reading, position unchanged from the first reading: unnecessary, police animals are property and murder aside (how common is this) the maximum penalties are unchanged from the status quo.
An attack on a police dog or other police support animal can be treated as causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The maximum penalty is 6 months’ imprisonment, or an unlimited fine, or both. The financial element of the penalty was raised only last year from a maximum fine of £20,000. An attack on a police animal could be considered by the court as an aggravating factor leading to a higher sentence within the available range.
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by joecphillips)
Send it to a second reading
I wasn't questioning why it was sent to second reading, I was looking for someone to clarify what JD has just said - that this doesn't actually change anything.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Okay, he's already lost the Brownie point he won last night by requesting pointless second readings

Posted from TSR Mobile
He had then realised that it didn't need it but I had already contacted adam
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by RayApparently)
I wasn't questioning why it was sent to second reading, I was looking for someone to clarify what JD has just said - that this doesn't actually change anything.
At the minute it most sentences these offences would carry a maximum 6 months jail time or a fine or class police animals as a piece of equipment and the charge would be criminal damage, this bill creates a law that is exclusively for assaults on police animals and the top sentence is 15 years
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by joecphillips)
At the minute it most sentences these offences would carry a maximum 6 months jail time or a fine or class police animals as a piece of equipment and the charge would be criminal damage, this bill creates a law that is exclusively for assaults on police animals and the top sentence is 15 years
So Jammy is simply mistaken then?

->
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
The changes didn't really need a second reading, position unchanged from the first reading: unnecessary, police animals are property and murder aside (how common is this) the maximum penalties are unchanged from the status quo.
0
Jammy Duel
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by RayApparently)
So Jammy is simply mistaken then?

->
Not at all, the statements are equivalent but given in different ways. The only significant change is the addition of 15 years for murder. From what I can see this is a rarity given google is too busy telling me about out of control animals being killed by the police rather than police animals being killed. The net effect is occasionally and extension of maximum (but jot necessarily handed down) sentence and redefining of police animals into their own category separate to other police property.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Not at all, the statements are equivalent but given in different ways. The only significant change is the addition of 15 years for murder. From what I can see this is a rarity given google is too busy telling me about out of control animals being killed by the police rather than police animals being killed. The net effect is occasionally and extension of maximum (but jot necessarily handed down) sentence and redefining of police animals into their own category separate to other police property.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Hmmm. And though it's the only substantial change I'm not even sure 15 years for killing a police dog is reasonable. Might have to switch to a No.
0
Joep95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by RayApparently)
So Jammy is simply mistaken then?

->
Killing a police animal is uncommon but does occur which would carry a maximum of 15 years which is more than the 10 this bill apparently doesn't change.

The less serious to the average ones currently have a maximum of 6 months this would give judges the possibility of it being up to 5 years.

And serious attacks that currently could be charged with criminal damage would be charged with this both have a maximum of 10 years.

This does change the law significantly for killing a police animal and other attacks that would normally come with a 6 months maximum, in theory it doesn't change much but in reality it does make a change
0
username2585877
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
nay
0
CoffeeAndPolitics
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
Nay
0
username1899909
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
Abstain
2.2a is to harsh for me to vote aye
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (675)
33.62%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (856)
42.63%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (386)
19.22%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (91)
4.53%

Watched Threads

View All