United Kingdom
Title | Summary |
---|---|
RSPCA v. McCormick | It was held that for an animal fight to have taken place, contrary to Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act, the following must have occurred: a "protected animal" must have been placed with another animal in an environment where the ability of both to escape is restricted and controlled by some person or persons connected with that activity or by some artificial restraint. ‘Placed with’ is to be construed as a ‘matter of normal language.’ |
Scotland - Animal Welfare - 2003 Proposal | |
Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | |
Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020 | |
Secretary of State for The Home Office v. BUAV and the Information Commissioner |
Appeal concerning the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and experiments involving animals. The BUAV had made an information request in respect of five research project licenses issued under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Home Office released limited summary information, relying on exemptions under FOIA to reason this; namely under section 24(1) which would prohibit information from being disclosed that had been given “in confidence.” The Court of Appeal upheld the decision that the Home Office was entitled to refuse BUAV’s information request. |
Taylor v. RSPCA |
|
The United Kingdom | |
The United Kingdom (UK) | |
UK - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021 | |
UK - Cruelty - Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 |
|