Scotland has moved to treat dog theft as its own distinct criminal offence, reflecting a growing public and political view that stealing a dog is not comparable to stealing an ordinary item of property. The legislative change has been driven by sustained concern about the emotional harm to families and the welfare impact on the dog itself.
What Scotland has changed
Under Scotland’s Dog Theft (Scotland) legislation, dog theft is treated as a specific offence rather than being pursued only under general theft provisions. The intent is to ensure the courts can recognise the real-world impact of dog theft on victims and to strengthen deterrence through a clearer legal framework.
Penalties and court approach
Reporting on the Bill describes penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, alongside measures intended to better reflect the harm done to victims. The same coverage also notes provision for victim impact statements in court, allowing owners to describe the effects of the crime in practical and emotional terms.
Assistance dogs and aggravated circumstances
The Scottish proposal has also been reported as including a more serious category for the theft of assistance dogs, reflecting the wider consequences when a working support animal is taken.
Why this matters beyond Scotland
Dog theft is rarely “just theft”. It creates prolonged distress for owners, destabilises routine, and often places the dog at welfare risk through rapid rehoming, improper containment, transport stress, or onward sale. A legal framework that explicitly recognises the unique harm of dog theft can send a clear signal to courts, offenders, and enforcement bodies that this is a serious crime with serious consequences.
For search and reader relevance, this issue sits directly within: dog theft law, pet theft, stolen dog Ireland, dog microchipping, responsible dog ownership, dog welfare, and crime prevention for dog owners.
What about Ireland?
In Ireland, dog theft is generally addressed through existing theft offences rather than a dedicated “dog theft” offence. I have not, within the research sources available in this session, verified any enacted Irish equivalent that mirrors Scotland’s dedicated approach. If you want this section stated as a hard legal position, I would need the specific Irish Act or an Oireachtas reference to cite precisely.
Should Ireland and other countries adopt a similar model?
A dedicated offence can be justified where it achieves at least one of the following:
clearer charging decisions and more consistent prosecution practice
sentencing that better reflects harm (including welfare harm to the animal)
improved recording of dog theft data as a distinct category
stronger deterrence through clarity and visibility
However, any reform must also be matched with enforcement capacity and practical prevention—otherwise, the change risks being symbolic rather than effective.
Practical prevention still matters (Ireland and Scotland alike)
Even with stronger law, prevention remains critical:
microchip and keep details updated
use secure leads, collars and ID in public spaces
be cautious about advertising dogs and locations publicly online
secure gardens, gates, and visible entry points
report suspicious behaviour early, not after a theft occurs.
The Canine Report