Her offence was to unwittingly sell a goldfish to a 14-year-old boy taking part in a trading standards 'sting'.

At most, pet shop owner Joan Higgins, 66, expected a slap on the wrist for breaking new animal welfare laws which ban the sale of pets to under-16s.

Instead, the great-grandmother was taken to court, fined £1,000, placed under curfew - and ordered to wear an electronic tag for two months.

The punishment is normally handed out to violent thugs and repeat offenders.

The prosecution of Mrs Higgins and her son Mark is estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,000 and has left her with a criminal record.

Mark, 47, was also fined and ordered to carry out 120 hours of unpaid work in the community.

Last night, as an MP criticised the magistrates, Mrs Higgins - who has run the pet shop for 28 years - said the family's eight-month ordeal had left them traumatised.

 

She added: 'It's ridiculous. I mean, what danger am I that I have to wear an electronic tag? These last few months have been a very stressful time.'

The seven-week curfew imposed by the court means she is unable to babysit her great-grandson at his home or go to bingo sessions with her sister, and will be unable to attend a Rod Stewart concert after tickets were bought for her by her nephew, actor Will Mellor.

 

Her son said: 'I think it's a farce. What gets me so cross is that they put my Mum on a tag - she's nearly 70, for goodness' sake.

'She's a great-grandma so she won't be able to babysit a newborn baby. You would think they have better things to do with their time and money.'

Mr Higgins claimed the undercover operation was a clear case of entrapment - when a person is encouraged by someone in some official capacity to commit a crime - and said the case should never have gone to court.

 

He said: 'The council sent the 14-year-old in to us. It is hard to tell how old a lad is these days. He looked much older than 14.'

He added that his mother almost fainted in the dock when magistrates told her she could go to prison for the offence.

'I told her they wouldn't send her to prison but she was still worried,' he said. 'The only other time she has been in court is when she did jury service.'

 

Under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 it is illegal to sell pets - including goldfish - to children under the age of 16 unless they are accompanied by an adult. Pet shops must also provide advice on animal welfare to buyers.

The maximum penalty is imprisonment for up to 12 months, or a fine of up to £20,000, or both.

The Higgins family's ordeal began when council officials heard that Majors Pet Shop in Sale, Greater Manchester, was selling animals to children.

They sent the 14-year-old schoolboy into the shop to carry out a test purchase and Mr Higgins sold him the goldfish without questioning his age or providing any information about the care of the fish.

A council officer in the shop at the time also noticed a cockatiel in a cage that appeared to be in a poor state of health. A vet found the bird had a broken leg and eye problems. It was later put down.

 

Mrs Higgins and her son were charged with selling the fish to a person aged under 16 and with causing unnecessary suffering to a cockatiel by failing to provide appropriate care and treatment.

Pleading guilty, Mrs Higgins told Trafford magistrates the cockatiel had not been for sale and she had been bathing its eye daily.

 

She had intended to take it to the vet but had been distracted and worried because her other son was in hospital.

The court heard that Mrs Higgins had possessed a licence to sell animals for many years and had never had any problems before.

She was fined £1,000 and given a community order with a curfew requiring her to stay home between 6pm and 7am for seven weeks.

Mrs Higgins did not have her licence to sell animals removed, but both she and her son were told that if they ever appeared in court for a similar offence they could face a jail sentence.

David Davies, Tory MP for Monmouth, said: 'You simply couldn't make it up. It is absolutely ludicrous that old ladies should be hounded through the courts and electronically tagged for something like this.

 

'At a time when courts are being told not to lock up career burglars we have them issuing severe punishments like this on little old ladies.' Mr Davies, who has served as a special constable for three years, said: 'Not only is it traumatic for her but it is a complete waste of time and taxpayers' money. It is ridiculous.

'Instead of getting 14-year-old boys to act in this type of sting they should have them trying to nail people who sell drugs outside our schools.'

Trafford Council said it launched an investigation after an unsubstantiated complaint that the shop had sold a gerbil to a 14-year-old girl with learning disabilities. The council claimed the animal later died after the child placed it in a disposable coffee cup with a plastic lid on top.

But the complaint did not form part of the legal action in court and its truth cannot be verified.

Mrs Higgins said the shop had not stocked gerbils for months before the complaint anyway.

Defending the goldfish case, Iain Veitch, head of public protection at Trafford Council, said: 'The evidence presented for this conviction clearly demonstrates that it is irresponsible to sell animals to those who are not old enough to look after them.

'Let this conviction send out a message that we will not tolerate those who cause unnecessary suffering to animals. The council will always try to support pet and business owners so that they are able to care for their animals properly, but where they continually ignore the advice they are given, we will not hesitate to use our statutory powers.'

The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health.

 

What do you think about this?

I think it deserves to be in off topic...

-

I'll move it, hang on.

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

More shock news?

 

Um, sucks for the old lady but what can we do?

I think it's British actually.

 

On the other hand, if they hadn't done anything there would be an article about 'Government ignores Animal Rights' instead...

Course the real problem is people voting for the idiots in the first place...thankfully less than a third of us vote, so at least it's not representative of a national trend of stupidity.

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

 

 

You missed the British colloquiums such as mum and the fact the money was in British pounds? Not American sensationalism you numpty

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

I'm sure there's some great meaning of life story in it. My guess is that people love being shocked and outraged over something petty.

 

But, as the posts above seem to indicate, not as much as assuming that only American laws and politicians are so dumb :lol:

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

 

 

You missed the British colloquiums such as mum and the fact the money was in British pounds? Not American sensationalism you numpty

Yes, this was from a British news website, to clear things up.

I've always wondered how you could get away with using a 14 year to break a law to catch another person breaking the law. Wouldn't the boy technically have permission from the government to buy that fish? Because if he didn't then he should have been charged with something for breaking the law...

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

 

 

You missed the British colloquiums such as mum and the fact the money was in British pounds? Not American sensationalism you numpty

Yes, this was from a British news website, to clear things up.

 

 

It sort of has to be considering anyone who actually read the article can tell quickly it's British or should be able too...

 

The American posts annoy me - either indicates they didn't read or ....Didn't read ;P

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

 

 

You missed the British colloquiums such as mum and the fact the money was in British pounds? Not American sensationalism you numpty

Yes, this was from a British news website, to clear things up.

 

 

It sort of has to be considering anyone who actually read the article can tell quickly it's British or should be able too...

 

The American posts annoy me - either indicates they didn't read or ....Didn't read ;P

Yes, it's rather sad that people these days don't analyze something before they post their opinion on it. The whole point of this article was to spark discussion on what [the reader] thinks about laws such as these, and the controversey surrounding it.

Wow.. the law really missed the mark on this one.

Its a goldfish, they actually consider them as pets?

Its a goldfish, they actually consider them as pets?

 

Think of the danger a 14-year old can get into with a goldfish!!1! *gasp*

She didn't sell him a flippin' lion. It's a goldfish. And she doesn't need to take him through the basic procedure to care for it either. It. Is. A. Goldfish.

I commented on this when seeing it on BBC News just last night, initially I thought it must of been just another crazy sign of stupidity within enforcing laws in Britain - harsher criminals get away with things and yet people like this get punished. Also makes me think of things like Circus fairgrounds giving out goldfish as rewards, how many under-16s do you think get those? ;)

 

Yet, one does wonder that surely in order to consider a 'sting-operation', the pet shop must of been reported for breaking the laws of selling pets to under-16s? Even though this case is just a goldfish, it may well be that the pet-shop was selling other pets to under-16s. I certainly remember real morons when I was younger, talking about buying gerbils just to let them go and run down the road - I'm glad that the law's here to try and prevent this kind of thing happening.

 

I've always wondered how you could get away with using a 14 year to break a law to catch another person breaking the law. Wouldn't the boy technically have permission from the government to buy that fish? Because if he didn't then he should have been charged with something for breaking the law...

I don't think the boy would really need permission to buy the fish, I'm not up on the law - but I'd presume it's not illegal for under-16s to attempt to purchase pets, rather it's illegal for the shop to complete the transaction. That's what I'd presume they're asking for - the boy to obtain details on if the shop did that.

 

Off-topic: Ahh, even more snow in Scotland!

Another stupid American shock story.... no surprise there.

 

 

You missed the British colloquiums such as mum and the fact the money was in British pounds? Not American sensationalism you numpty

Yes, this was from a British news website, to clear things up.

 

I apologize, I admit that I only skimmed through the article as I didn't find the topic to be very interesting.

I assumed that something as stupid as this could only happen in America though ahaha.

its dumb that the british made her pay 1000 british pounds and make her were the electric tags just becuase its a fish

its not like hes buying a freaking bear and talking it to restuarants and strolls in the

the government has gone screwed up with recently in all countries alike....

So child spies do exist ;)

Time to phone MI5 :thumbsup:

The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health. :lol:

 

Its a goldfish, they don't live for more than a week or so. This entire event was waste of time and money, and i thought the American justice system was messed up. :lol:

The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health. :lol:

 

Its a goldfish, they don't live for more than a week or so. This entire event was waste of time and money, and i thought the American justice system was messed up. :lol:

Exactly. It's just a damn goldfish. We eat tons of those every year (not goldfish, just fish). Wouldn't it be a better test to buy a dog or something, rather than a $10 fish? :mellow:

Also, it's kind of funny that a kid is working with the government. Reminds me of 1984.

The goldfish was later adopted by an animal welfare officer and is in good health. :lol:

 

Its a goldfish, they don't live for more than a week or so. This entire event was waste of time and money, and i thought the American justice system was messed up. :lol:

Exactly. It's just a damn goldfish. We eat tons of those every year (not goldfish, just fish). Wouldn't it be a better test to buy a dog or something, rather than a $10 fish? :mellow:

Also, it's kind of funny that a kid is working with the government. Reminds me of 1984.

 

What happened in 1984?(yeah I'm clueless).

^ Read more books

Wouldn't it be a better test to buy a dog or something, rather than a $10 fish? :mellow:

Also, it's kind of funny that a kid is working with the government. Reminds me of 1984.

Heh, yea - quite true, although you can of-course see why it's needed in this case.

 

I don't agree with the fact that they tested using a goldfish, common sense really dictates that although the goldfish still could be classed as a pet and violating the law, really the law would be more catered to other pets, like you said - a dog, gerbils etc. I wouldn't be surprised if the owner was selling other pets to under-16s, but testing with a goldfish seems like an attempt to just catch out the owner which isn't a particularly fair test.

 

What happened in 1984?(yeah I'm clueless).

1984's quite a famous book centering on the idea of Totalitarianism within the government, it's an interesting read in some ways and well written - not quite as nice a read as your average novel though! :P George Orwell - 1984 - Google Books