Your World of Legal Intelligence
 United Kingdom | +44 (0) 20 7284 8080

The Fish that Got Away: Some Reflections on Valentine v Kennedy

Document Cited authorities 9 Cited in Related
Vincent
DOI10.3366/E1364980908000644
AuthorDouglas Bain,C G van der Merwe
Pages418-428
Date01 September 2008
Published date01 September 2008
INTRODUCTION

The case of Valentine v Kennedy1

1985 SCCR 89. This is a decision of Sheriff R E G Younger.

raises interesting questions about the ownership of wild animals which escape from enclosures in which they were tamed or nurtured. The standard rule in Scotland is that things once owned but then abandoned belong to the Crown: quod nullius est fit domini regis.2

See e.g. Bell, Prin §§ 1287, 1291.

 However, this rule does not apply in the case of animals that are classified as wild. Once such animals escape and regain their natural freedom, they belong to no one and become res nullius; as such they are open to acquisition by capture under the rule quod nullius est, naturali ratione cedit occupanti.3

See e.g. Bankton, Inst 2.1.7; Bell Prin § 1288.

In the Valentine case the four accused were charged with the theft of some seventeen rainbow trout, which they caught in a burn a short distance from a reservoir during a nocturnal fishing expedition. The reservoir itself was a “stank”, that is, an enclosed area of water with obstacles positioned so as to provide a normally foolproof barrier against escape.4

1985 SCCR 89 at 90, relying on Pollok v McCabe 1910 SC (J) 23.

The owner of the fishing rights had recently stocked the stank with rainbow trout bought from fish farms in the vicinity. This was done for commercial purposes: the owner sold permits to the public allowing them to fish for trout

As the sheriff pointed out, rainbow trout are not indigenous to Scotland and struggle to survive during the winter in reservoirs and other waters.5

Rainbow trout, which are non-migratory, are not native to the United Kingdom and there are no self-maintaining rainbow trout populations in the United Kingdom. It appears that natural spawning is uncommon, and that they are a farmed species. See Fisheries Research Service, rainbow trout, available at http://www.frs-scotland.gov.uk/FRS.Web/Delivery/display_standalone.aspx?contentid=620.

The sheriff accepted that the trout caught by the accused had somehow managed to escape from the normally secure stank. He reasoned, correctly, that fish that have not been enclosed in a pond or stank are res nullius because they belong to a wild species and because, if unconfined, they are in a state of natural freedom. Capture of unconfined fish is not theft at common law, even if such capture conflicts with vested fishing rights or contravenes a statute:6

See Craig, Jus Feudale 2.8.13; Stair, Inst 2.1.33; Bankton, Inst 2.1.7; Erskine, Inst 2.1.10; Bell, Prin § 1288.

 famously, a poacher owns his unlawful haul.7

Scott v Everitt (1853) 15 D 228; G H Gordon, The Criminal Law of Scotland, 3rd edn, by M G A Christie (2001) para 14-21.

 The situation in Valentine was not, however, the standard one. Although the fish were unconfined at the time they were captured, in a burn, they had previously been confined within a stank. Did that make a difference ESCAPING FISH

In the sheriff's view, the previous confinement did indeed make a difference. Trout in a stank were much the same as deer in an enclosure: being no longer in a state of natural freedom, they lost their status as res nullius.8

1985 SCCR 89 at 90-91. See also BGB § 960(1): “Wild animals are ownerless as long as they are free. Wild animals in zoos and fish in ponds or other self-contained private waters are not ownerless.”

Indeed, the sheriff argued, trout bred in a fish farm had already lost their status as res nullius even before their release into a stank. He continued:9

At 91.

Thereafter if some of these rainbow trout escape occasionally in spite of proper precautions from that enclosed water or stank I consider that they as escapers remain the property of that purchaser insofar as they can be identified as his property; accordingly, someone who catches trout which he knows to have escaped from a stank or enclosed water is guilty of theft if he does not return them to their rightful owner.

 He convicted the accused of theft

In the passage just quoted the sheriff seems to assume – though without actually saying so – that trout born and retained in captivity somehow lose their status as wild animals. This corresponds with the opinion of the author of a short note on the case who comments that “there seems to be no reason to treat farmed fish as any different from farmed sheep even when they escape from their farm or pond”.10

1985 SCCR 89 at 92.

The argument is presumably that, because farmed fish are raised in captivity and commercially exploited in the same way as farmed sheep, they lose their innate wildness and assume the status of domestic animals. The writer of the note concedes that identification of trout may be more difficult than the identification of sheep but argues that this difficulty was overcome in Valentine by the fact that the trout were caught near the stank and were easily recognisable since they were not indigenous to Scotland

A fundamental difficulty with this argument is that the law has classified animals into domestic (tame),11

Animals classified as domestic creatures (domitae naturae) are: “horses, sheep, poultry and the like” (Hume, Commentaries i, 82); “hens, geese, turkeys etc” and “house-doves or pigeons” (Erskine, Inst 2.1.10).

domesticated (tamed), and animals ferae naturae (animals of a wild nature). This classification is fixed by law and it seems almost impossible to move from one status to the other.12

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, “Stealing fish”, in R F Hunter (ed), Justice and Crime: Essays in Honour of The Right Honourable The Lord Emslie (1993) 1 at 5 n 19, citing Stair, Inst 2.1.33.

 In practice it has been recognised that certain animals like cats, dogs and geese may belong either to a tame or a wild species;13

See already D 41.1.5.6 with regard to wild geese.

 and it has also been accepted that wild animals can become so tamed that they fall into the class of domesticated animals. But on the whole it has never been accepted that wild animals can be tamed to such an extent that they will be considered domestic animals.

In the event the sheriff conceded that trout could not be tamed:14

At 91.

I suppose that a possible argument could be advanced that rainbow trout owing to their nature are not ferae naturae but are domestic animals; a domestic animal is any animal which is tame or has been or is being sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man (see Gordon, Criminal Law, second edition, para 32-05).15

The current, third edition of Gordon, Criminal Law (n 7) is to the same effect.

No such argument was presented to me and I doubt very much whether a fish like a trout can be “tamed”. In fact the proper classification does not seem to depend on whether a wild animal is sufficiently tamed to serve some purpose for the use of man, but rather on whether the animal has the habit of returning to the enclosure constructed for it by the owner of the land. Originally only bees, doves, peacocks and stags fell into this category. Roman-Dutch lists include deer, hawks and falcons, but presumably only if these animals were marked (for example, branded) or ringed or fitted with bells.16

H Grotius, De Iure Belli ac Pacis (1625) 2.8.3; S van Leeuwen, Censura Forensis (1662) 1.2.6.7; D G van der Keessel, Praelectiones iuris hodierni ad Hugonis Grotii Introductionem ad Iurisprudentiam Hollandicam (1800, published 1961-7) 2.4.13.

 Interestingly, George Joseph...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT