§ Mr. Smallasked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the operation of and the penalties provided in the law against brakeris of dowcattis, steiling of beis ad of fisches furth of mennis stankis and propir Lochis, particularly as regards the ability of those brought before the courts for the offences to understand the charges.
The Lord AdvocateMy hon. Friend appears to have been misinformed. The Act of 1607 was indeed, until 1964, couched in the terms used in the Question. The Act was then revised and the Short Title "Theft Act 1607" applied to it. Those parts of the Act relating to502W "brakeris of dowcattis" and stealing fish "furth of menis stankis" were repealed.
The Act, as amended, refers to the theft of bees and the theft of fish from proper stanks. The penalty for an offence against this Act is £40 Scots—£3.32.
Were it not for the provisions of this Act, it is unlikely that anyone could be convicted of stealing another person's bees or fish, as they would be regarded as wild animals and in no degree sub dominio. This would be unfair to people who keep bees, or stock ponds with fish. As regards understanding the language of the Act, it is usually the practice to libel the charge relating to fish as one of stealing fish from a stank. Reference is then made to the Act being contravened. This is in no way different from libelling any statutory offence. In any event, the use of the words "steal fish" would convey the substance of the crime to people who do not understand Scots.