Some fish have more rights
Tom Wright, aged 15, wrote that he was puzzled why youths who killed fish in the pool outside Telford Magistrates Court were arrested when contractors who killed fish in a lake in Wellington were not (letters, August 28).
Well, Tom, it all hinges on the definition of property. One can generally only damage (or steal for that matter) something which is property.
For example, one cannot criminally damage something abstract such as an idea. What is property is defined in the Criminal Damage Act, 1971, and when it comes to "wild creatures" they have to be tamed or kept in captivity or reduced into possession - by, for example,Êsomeone lawfully shooting them.
Hence fish kept by someone in a pool or tank are property and can be damaged but wild fish in a pond or river are not property and cannot be damaged under the law.
This may be difficult to understand but wild creatures have no owner so there is no owner to complain! If wild fish were included one would have to include all the fish in the sea! A similar definition applies to theft.
However, fish can be the subject of cruelty and if an offence of cruelty could be proved action might be taken.
Often the view is taken that if people are carrying out building works and have taken all practical steps to reduce cruelty no action is likely. Any investigation would look at this point. I do agree with you that it is sad that more care was not taken.
Richard Camp, Telford
Popular stories:
RAF Cosford general manager retiring
Legionnaire's victim improving
Daily news blog
Dining Out archive
Man dies after car park fall
