Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isted v. CPS | (1998) 162 J.P. 513 | [1998] Crim. L.R. 194; [1998] C.O.D. 86; (1998) 162 J.P.N. 663; The Times, December 11, 1997 |
The appellant was a keeper of livestock who had shot and injured a neighbor's dog that had strayed into the appellant's pig pen. He had been convicted of doing an act causing unnecessary suffering to the dog contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s 1(1)(a) (second limb). Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that the local justices were entitled to find as a matter of fact that it had not been reasonably necessary to shoot the dog. |
Case |
| UK - Research Animals - Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 | 1986 CHAPTER 14 | An Act to regulate the use of live vertebrate animals in research. Before a test on animals is given permission to proceed various licenses are required. These include: a personal license for each person carrying out the procedure, a project license for the programme of work, and an establishment license for the place in which the work is carried out. Each project must undergo a harm/ benefit analysis. This considers the potential benefits for humankind, the environment or other animals, against the pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm which the experimental animals may experience. Licence holders who lawfully use animals under the Act are exempted from the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Section 24 of the Act makes it an offence to disclose any information relating to a regulated animal experiment which has been, or is reasonably believed to have been, given in confidence. | Statute | |
| UK - Riding - Riding Establishments Act 1970 | 1970 CHAPTER 32 |
An Act to confer further powers on local authorities with respect to the licensing of riding establishments and to amend the Riding Establishments Act 1964. |
Statute | |
| UK - Slaughter - The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995 | 1995 No. 731 | Under these Regulations it is an offence to cause, or to permit, unavoidable excitement, pain or suffering to any animal during restraint, stunning, slaughter or killing. | Statute | |
| Rowley v. Murphy | [1964] 2 QB 43 | [1963] 3 WLR 1061; [1964] 1 All ER 50; 128 JP 88; 107 SJ 982 |
A deer being hunted with a pack of hounds jumped onto a road and fell under a stationery vehicle. Members of the hunt dragged the deer from under the vehicle to a nearby enclosure, where the Master of the hunt slit the deer's throat and killed it. The Divisional Court held that the Master could not be convicted of an offence of cruelty under the 1911 Act because, for the purposes of that Act, which protects only captive and domestic animals, a mere temporary inability to escape did not amount to a state of captivity. |
Case |
| Nye v. Niblett | [1918] 1 KB 23 |
Three boys who had killed two farm cats were charged with an offence which could only have been committed if the cats were kept for a "domestic purpose". Local justices had acquitted the boys, in part because there no evidence was before them that the cats that were killed had been kept for a domestic purpose. Allowing the prosecutor's appeal, the Divisional Court held that there was no need to prove that a particular animal was in fact kept for a domestic purpose if it belonged to a class of animals which were ordinarily so kept. |
Case | |
| UK - Wildlife - Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 | 2017 No. 1012 | These Regulations consolidated the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010, and made minor modifications. Part 3, regulation 43 makes it an offence (subject to exceptions) to deliberately capture, kill or disturb certain wild animals or to trade in them. Regulation 45 prohibits the use of certain methods of capturing or killing wild animals. | Statute | |
| The United Kingdom | Policy | |||
| Waters v. Meakin | [1916] 2 KB 111 |
The respondent had been acquitted of causing unnecessary suffering to rabbits (contrary to the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s. 1(1)) by releasing them into a fenced enclosure from which they had no reasonable chance of escape, before setting dogs after them. Dismissing the prosecutor's appeal, the Divisional Court held that the respondent's conduct fell within the exception provided for "hunting or coursing" by sub-s. (3) (b) of s. 1of the 1911 Act. From the moment that the captive animal is liberated to be hunted or coursed, it falls outwith the protection of the 1911 Act, irrespective of whether the hunting or coursing is humane or sportsmanlike. |
Case | |
| James v. RSPCA | EWHC 1642 | Defendant was charged with unnecessary suffering towards three horses found in terrible conditions. It was held that where a protected animal is found in distress, a veterinarian's certificate need not be in writing for a constable or inspector to exercise powers under Section 18 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (namely seizure and detention). Oral certification of suffering will suffice in certain circumstances, for example where the protected animal requires urgent treatment and there is not sufficient time to produce a written certificate. | Case |