|UK - Welfare - Protection of Animals (Anaesthetics) Act 1964||
|UK - Wildlife - Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017|
|UK - Wildlife - The Humane Trapping Standards Regulations 2019|
|UK - Wildlife Trade - Ivory Act 2018|
|UK- Wildlife - Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981|
|United Kingdom Licensing and Regulation of Pet Shops|
|Wales - Circus - Wild Animals and Circuses (Wales) Act 2020|
|Ward v RSPCA||
RSPCA inspectors attended Mr Ward’s smallholding to find two horses in a severely distressed condition, with a worm infestation. Veterinarian advice had not been sought following failed attempts to home treat. The farmer was convicted of unnecessary suffering pursuant to section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and disqualified from owning, keeping, participating in the keeping of, or controlling or influencing the way horses or cattle are kept for a three year period, pursuant to section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The defendant brought an appeal to the Crown Court and the High Court in respect of the disqualification. The High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 was intended to promote the welfare of animals and part of the mechanism of protection is the order of disqualification following convictions for offences under the Act.
|Waters v. Meakin||
|Webb v. Avon||
This case addressed the power of the court to make a contingent destruction order under Section 4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (as amended). These orders allow dangerous dogs to be released and kept under strict conditions. The court held that the 19991 Act is not clear as to the breadth of who these conditions apply to, but considered that dangerous dogs may only be released to their owners or other persons properly identified as being in charge. The case was remitted to the Crown Court for further determination. The court also addressed other aspects of the 1991 Act along with the Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015.