The LAW seems to have an answer for everything...what next??

[pastafreak]

http://www.telegraph....a-Protection-Act.html

Maybe some way needs to be developed so that current owners are listed and up-to-date in records....

[fredpuli47]

The answer lies in the link. Prima facie the moment the new claimant applied to have the dog's details of ownership changed to show their address the evidence for the tort of conversion, a civil matter, or of theft is complete. The police should then act on the theft and they cannot be denied the information. Data protection is not devised to prevent criminals from being detected. Likewise, it's hard to see how a civil claimant, in these circumstances, cannot compel disclosure. His civil claim is really theft differently described.

[carmalee]

can sympathise will all concerned - the new owners quite likely bought the dog in good faith and were just trying to do the right thing by their new pet by updating it's info. Shame.

[divegirl]

Surely if the new owner is going to claim that the dog was bought in good faith then they would have got the change of registration information from the owner!
When I got my rescue boy he had been chipped by the rescue and they gave me a form [a sort of consent form] to send to the chipping company to have him registered in my name.
To me this is just giving the green light to dog thieves to take dogs and hold on to them knowing that the rightful owner can do jack shat about it.


Lisa x

[Andyvon]

I think the problem here is that there is no proof the dog was actually stolen. Although the original owner claims the dog was stolen (and we can all be pretty sure it was) any police charges or court action would have to be supported by incontrovertable proof of the theft. It could be argued by the new owners that the bricklayer sold the dog or gave it away, and has now changed his mind. In that case, any legal proceedings would probably collapse as there's no proof that's not the case.

[fredpuli47]

Yes,Andyvan, the CPS must have seen statements and reports and decided there was not a sufficiently good chance of conviction, prima facie case or none. It's not clear what the County Court judge was beiing asked to do. The owner is still the owner, no matter what anybody has paid in good faith to 'buy' the dog, if he has paid, unless the dog was abandoned by the owner and so is held to have no owner any more..Without showing a valid claim for conversion, that someone is keeping the dog against the right of the owner,the judge would not do anything. It may be that the judge thought that even then he had no power to order disclosure by the keeper of the record (seems wrong if he did. The record holder is obstructing the course of a rightful claim and assisting the potential defendant in the retention of a dog not rightfully his/hers)