|UK - Cruelty - Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988||1988 c.31||
For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Protection against Cruel Tethering Act 1988 is an act to protect horses, asses and mules against cruel tethering. This means in such conditions or such a manner to cause that animal unnecessary suffering.
|UK - Animal Welfare - Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021||2021 c.21||This Act increased the period that judges may impose prison sentences on those that breach the Animal Welfare Act 2006 (applicable in England and Wales). The Act came into force on 29 June 2021. Imprisonment has increased to 5 years (and/or an unlimited fine) for certain offences where a defendant is convicted on indictment at the Crown Court. This includes the offences of unnecessary suffering and dog fighting. Imprisonment on summary conviction for these offences at the Magistrates' Court is increased to 12 months, or a fine, or both.||Statute|
|The United Kingdom (UK)||Alice Collinson||
Brief Summary of United Kingdom Animal Law
|The United Kingdom||Policy|
|Taylor v. RSPCA|| EWHC Admin 103|| 2 Cr App R 24; (2001) 165 JP 567;  Crim LR 388; (2001) 165 JPN 625||
Two women, who had been disqualified from keeping horses by a court, transferred ownership of the horses to their niece, but had continued to make arrangements for the accommodation of the horses and to provide food and water for them. The women were convicted in the Magistrates' Court of the offence of "having custody" of the horses in breach of the disqualification order, and appealed. Dismissing the appeal, the Divisional Court held that, what amounted to "custody" was primarily a matter of fact for the lower court to decide, and that the local justices had been entitled to conclude that, notwithstanding the transfer of ownership, the two women had continued to be in control, or have the power to control, the horses.
|Secretary of State for The Home Office v. BUAV and the Information Commissioner|| EWHC 892 (QB||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.||Case|
|Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020||2020 asp 14||This Act increased the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare and wildlife crimes in Scotland to five years imprisonment and unlimited fines. This includes penalties under the The Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, The Protection of Badgers Act 1992, the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, the Deer (Scotland) Act 1996, and other animal welfare related legislation in Scotland. These include the offence of unnecessary suffering and animal fighting. The Act also incorporated 'Finn's Law' which will prevent those that harm service animals in the course of their duties from claiming that they did so in self-defence. The Act also creates new powers (by way of future secondary legislation) to impose fixed penalty notices for less serious offences. Further, the Act restricts licensing for the killing of seals, and provides mountain hares with general protection from killing.||Statute|
|Scotland - Animal Welfare - Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020||Scotland Act 2020||Scotland's 2020 legislation increased maximum available penalties for the most serious animal welfare offences, involving domesticated or wild animals, up to 5 years imprisonment and unlimited fines. Serious crimes include animal fighting and causing unnecessary suffering. The Act also prevents those who attack service animals in the course of their duties from relying on self-defence. Further, the Act requires the courts to consider whether disqualification orders are necessary to protect animal welfare, and to provide its reasons for reaching its decision in every case that reaches court.||Statute|
|Scotland - Animal Welfare - 2003 Proposal||2003 Proposal, Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912||For historical purposes only. Law has been repealed and/or replaced. The Scottish Executive (SE) issued a consultation paper on 21st March 2003 on proposals to amend the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912. These proposals were aimed at addressing the specific problem of the lack of statutory powers available to local authorities to remove neglected farm livestock, which are suffering or at risk of suffering, to a place of safely. The responses from a number of organisations to that paper have shown a clear desire for a much wider reform of our existing animal welfare legislation. Ministers now wish to consider expanding the proposed amendment to the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 and to introduce wider legislation aimed at consolidating and updating much of the existing animal welfare legislation in Scotland. The purpose of any new legislation will be to prevent cruelty to any animal and to set out the obligations of people to promote the welfare of all animals (including domestic pets) for which they are either permanently or temporarily responsible. This will include owning, managing, or in any way keeping any animal, including buying, selling and transporting.||Statute|
|RSPCA v. McCormick|| EWHC 928 (Admin)||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.’||Case|