Tagging was “inappropriate” says judge
Detail:
So, Joan Higgins, the pet retailer who was tagged for selling a goldfish to an under 16, has won her appeal and had her sentence quashed. Presiding judge indeed said the tagging of “a 66-year-old respectable lady with no previous convictions made the imposition of a curfew inappropriate”.
To refresh your memories, Joan and her son Mark were both prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act after a sting operation in which Mark sold a goldfish to a 15-year-old boy. Officers at the time noticed a atiel in distress, which was later found to have a broken leg and put down.
In all, Joan and Mark pleaded guilty to seven offences – one of causing unnecessary suffering to a atiel, and six other breaches of the terms of her pet shop licence. If found guilty, under the Act one can be jailed for up to 51 weeks and/or fined up to a maximum of £20,000.
Trafford magistrates then fined Joan £1,000 and her son £750. The court also ordered Mark to do 120 hours of community service, but because Joan has ongoing health issues, was declared unfit to do this and ordered, controversially, to wear an electronic tag and comply with a night curfew of seven weeks.
And that led to a torrent of condemnation – and rightly so. No one argues that the fine was unjust, and they did, after all plead guilty to all charges. It was the tagging of a 66-year-old grandmother that sparked outrage across the country. The furore over the tagging pushed the focus from the guilty conviction to the sheer stupidity of the sentence.
It’s been argued that the Animal Welfare Act is too rigid; that it encourages a police state. But let us not forget that when we sell livestock, we have a duty of care. No matter whether that creature is a stick insect, goldfish or puppy.
Both Joan and Mark are delighted with the verdict – the presiding judge instead ruled that the correct sentence is a 12-month conditional discharge for each.
However, there is a danger here that Joan and Mark are being raised to hero-like status in certain national papers, and I am uncomfortable with this. As I said, yes, the fitting of an electronic tag was downright ridiculous. Some papers have played the bully card, implying that the council was picking on a small business simply because it was small. And in an age when there is much bitterness against heavy-handed bureaucrats, this has found resonance with many.
The facts are that Mark did sell a goldfish to an underage boy without checking for proof of age or providing any information about its care. There was also an injured bird on the premises. These are both obvious failings.
Let us in the pet trade not forget nor neglect our responsibilities.
To refresh your memories, Joan and her son Mark were both prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act after a sting operation in which Mark sold a goldfish to a 15-year-old boy. Officers at the time noticed a atiel in distress, which was later found to have a broken leg and put down.
In all, Joan and Mark pleaded guilty to seven offences – one of causing unnecessary suffering to a atiel, and six other breaches of the terms of her pet shop licence. If found guilty, under the Act one can be jailed for up to 51 weeks and/or fined up to a maximum of £20,000.
Trafford magistrates then fined Joan £1,000 and her son £750. The court also ordered Mark to do 120 hours of community service, but because Joan has ongoing health issues, was declared unfit to do this and ordered, controversially, to wear an electronic tag and comply with a night curfew of seven weeks.
And that led to a torrent of condemnation – and rightly so. No one argues that the fine was unjust, and they did, after all plead guilty to all charges. It was the tagging of a 66-year-old grandmother that sparked outrage across the country. The furore over the tagging pushed the focus from the guilty conviction to the sheer stupidity of the sentence.
It’s been argued that the Animal Welfare Act is too rigid; that it encourages a police state. But let us not forget that when we sell livestock, we have a duty of care. No matter whether that creature is a stick insect, goldfish or puppy.
Both Joan and Mark are delighted with the verdict – the presiding judge instead ruled that the correct sentence is a 12-month conditional discharge for each.
However, there is a danger here that Joan and Mark are being raised to hero-like status in certain national papers, and I am uncomfortable with this. As I said, yes, the fitting of an electronic tag was downright ridiculous. Some papers have played the bully card, implying that the council was picking on a small business simply because it was small. And in an age when there is much bitterness against heavy-handed bureaucrats, this has found resonance with many.
The facts are that Mark did sell a goldfish to an underage boy without checking for proof of age or providing any information about its care. There was also an injured bird on the premises. These are both obvious failings.
Let us in the pet trade not forget nor neglect our responsibilities.
By:
Sandra
Date/time :
30/04/2010
Replies to this topic...
