alaw journal december 2014 layout 1 17/12/2014 15:14 page ...€¦ · farmageddon: the true cost of...

inside this edition:

Cats and the Law: EvolvingProtection for Cats and Owners

Case Reports, Updates andother Materials

Domestic Violence: The Impacton Pets

JournalThe Association of Lawyers for Animal WelfareDecember 2014

of Animal Welfare Law

ALAW Journal December 2014_Layout 1 17/12/2014 15:14

Contents

A note from ALAW

1-6 Cats and the Law: Evolving Protection for Cats and Owners

7-11 Case Reports, Updates and Other Materials

12-13 Domestic Violence: The Impact on Pets

A note from ALAWSharp-eyed readers will have observedthat this edition carries the month ofpublication, which will continue fromnow on. It makes it easier to cross-matchthe journal edition to year of publication.

Angus Nurse and Diana Ryland examinethe Animal Welfare Act 2006, and itsimplications for companion animals,with reference to cats. Included in ourusual section on Case reports, updatesand other materials is a book review ofFarmageddon: the true cost of cheapmeat. Whether or not to include bookreviews in the journal has long been atopic of debate within ALAW; now nolonger I am happy to report, and I hopeyou enjoy the review by AlexanderConrad Culley.

Continuing on a farming theme, I urgereaders to download Animal Aid’s report – The Unaccounted Dead, whichprovides a harrowing account of farmanimals who die before slaughter fromneglect, fires on farms, road accidents onthe way to slaughter and other factors(details given p.10). Farm animal welfaredemands a response from each and everyone of us and books such asFarmageddon and the report fromAnimal Aid help us to formulate whataction we need to take in the light of thepitiless reality of farming.

Christina Warner considers the impact of domestic violence on its overlookedvictims – pets or companion animals.Practising lawyers working with survivors of domestic abuse will find this article invaluable as it gives practicaladvice on helping to keep petanimals/companions safe.

ALAW wishes all its members andsympathisers every best wish for thecoming year and to thank you for yourcontinuing support.

Jill WilliamsEditor

Address: ALAW, c/o Clair Matthews, Monckton Chambers,1&2 Raymond Buildings, Grays Inn, London, WC1R 5NR

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.alaw.org.uk

Directors: Alan Bates, Jeremy Chipperfield Simon Cox, Paula Sparks, Christina Warner, Jill Williams

Editor: Jill Williams

The Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare (ALAW)would like to thank Compassion in World Farming Trustfor its generous support of this Journal.

The views expressed in this Journal are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent those of ALAW.

Registered Office ALAW, Emstrey House (North), Shrewsbury Business Park, Shrewsbury,Shropshire, SY2 6LG. A company limited by guarantee (No 5307802 - England).Registered Charity 113462

The Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare

ALAW Journal December 2014_Layout 1 17/12/2014 15:14

1

Conducting an analysis ofthe practical impact of theAnimal Welfare Act 2006on companion animal

owners and their companionsidentifies the true significance of theAct as creating a 21st Centuryconception of animal welfare basedon the needs of animals. In somerespects, the Act challenges thehistorical notion of companionanimals as merely being propertysubject to human interests and devoid

of any perception of their havingrights.3 Instead it arguably providesfor a form of rights by requiringconsideration of the specific needs ofindividual companion animals. TheUK Animal Welfare Acts4 are part ofthe criminal law and impose a dutyto ensure welfare; thus an importantpart of the Acts is the requirementfor a ‘responsible person’ to ensurethat a cat’s needs are met. The Actsextend beyond historical notions ofownership, animals as property andpreventing cruelty whether by act oromission to provide for a positiveobligation to ensure animal welfare.The practical implications of thiswere the focus of the research workcommissioned by the former FelineAdvisory Bureau, now InternationalCat Care (iCatCare) on behalf of theCat Group5 on which this article isbased.

While the legal status of cats is, inprinciple, well established under

common law as they are personalproperty, problems can occur becausecats exist in a range of states e.g. feral,semi-feral, domesticated and stray.Some grey areas exist in relation toanimal welfare legislation and inrespect of the liabilities of cat owners.There has been little or no attentionpaid by legal researchers to addressingthe legal status of cats except withinthe context of animal welfareoffences, albeit some prior researchexists into offences involving wildcats6 and whether animals (includingcats) can be said to have legal rights.7

Our research considers rights theorynot just in relation to enforcement ofanimal welfare law but also within thecontext of other legislative, policy andethical considerations relating toanimal ownership and welfare. Inparticular, we examined how bothdomestic and wild cats are subject todifferent protection under the law andthe different liabilities imposed onhumans when dealing with cats.

Cats and the Law: EvolvingProtection for Cats and Owners

Dr Angus Nurse, Middlesex University1

and Diane Ryland, University of Lincoln2

1 Email – [email protected] 2 Email – [email protected] 3 Singer, P. (1975 [1995]) Animal Liberation,

London: Pimlico4 There is country-specific legislation in Scotland and

Northern Ireland; the Animal Health & Welfare(Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act(Northern Ireland) 2011. The three Animal WelfareActs have similar aims of preventing harm andpromoting animal welfare although there are somedifferences in the respective Acts. The main focus ofthis article is the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and itsapplication in England and Wales

5 The Cat Group brings together a range oforganisations dedicated to improving feline welfarepolicy and practice. Its membership consists of itsfounder International Cat Care, Battersea Dogs andCats Home, Blue Cross, Royal Society for thePrevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), BritishSmall Animal Veterinary Association (BSAVA), theGoverning Council of the Cat Fancy (GCCF), CatsProtection, People's Dispensary for Sick Animals(PDSA) and Wood Green Animal Shelters.

6 See, for example Lowther, J. Cook, D. and Roberts, M.(2002) Crime and Punishment in the Wildlife Trade,Regional Research Institute, University ofWolverhampton, Nurse, A (2003) The Nature of

Wildlife and Conservation Crime in the UK and itsPublic Response, Working Paper No 9: Faculty of Lawand Social Sciences, Birmingham: UCE, and Nurse, A.(2008) Policing Wildlife: Perspectives on Criminalityand Criminal Justice Policy on Wildlife Crime in theUK, Birmingham: Birmingham City University(unpublished doctoral thesis).

7 See for example Cass R. Sunstein, The Rights ofAnimals, The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol.70, No. 1, Centennial Tribute Essays (Winter, 2003),pp. 387-401 and Wise, S. (2000) Rattling the Cage:Towards Legal Rights for Animals, London: ProfileBooks.

There has been littleor no attention paid by

legal researchers toaddressing the legal

status of cats

“ “

ALAW Journal December 2014_Layout 1 17/12/2014 15:14 Page 1

slaves, servants, and even wives aspossessions. While some animalwelfare and anti-cruelty laws aredesigned to protect humaninvestment in property, Broom arguesthat the view of domestic and otheranimals as sentient beings thatdeserved respect is a natural socialprogression ‘in the wake of a similardeveloping view that persons ofother nations, creeds, or colours andwomen had such qualities.’13

Francione argues that animals’ statusas the property of humans dictatesthat laws which should require theirhumane treatment and preventunnecessary suffering fail to provideany significant protection for animalinterests. In reality, animals onlyreceive protection commensuratewith their value as human propertyor commodities. Francione arguesthat economic, legal and socialfactors prohibit recognition ofanimal interests unless a humaninterest also exists.14

Whether ownership of a cat can besaid to exist, depends in part uponthe status of the cat and whether it

the subject of absolute property orownership.10 However, the issue ofwhether a person can be said to owna cat lends itself to both theoreticaland legal debate and potentiallycauses problems for cat owners, notleast because cats can move from ahuman dependent state to occupyseveral ill-defined states such as stray,wild, feral or companion all of whichmay defy conventional notions ofownership.11 However, from theoutset we identify that the legalstatus of cats under the UK AnimalWelfare Acts is that of protectedanimals and that the law generallyconsiders cats to be ‘owned’ or caredfor by a ‘responsible’ person;somebody who has accepted someform of obligation to look after a cateven if that only means putting outfood. UK animal welfare legislationapplies not just to cats which areclearly linked to a single propertyand an identifiable owner, but also tothose stray and feral cats for which aperson may accept someresponsibility to provide a certainlevel of care and comfort.Attempting to claim ownership ofanother’s cat may also involveproperty rights. The protectionprovided under the law extends toboth domestic and feral cats as‘being of a kind which is commonlydomesticated in the British Islands’.The law thus extends beyondproviding protection solely tocompanion animals.

Broom12 compares the treatment ofanimals as property in most earlylegal systems to the treatment of

UK animal law is often complex anddifficult for the layperson tounderstand not only because of thelanguage used but also the need tounderstand how laws are interpretedin practice. iCatCare identified thatcat owners may face a number oflegal questions where either theredoes not seem to be a definitiveanswer or where identifying theanswer is problematic and time-consuming. Our project aimed toaddress this by examining the mostfrequently asked questions about catsand their legal status. Our researchexamined questions concerning: thesale of cats and both buyer and sellerrights; ownership of abandoned orstray cats; liability for aggressive cats;trespass and nuisance issues; whatactions can lawfully be taken toprevent cats from enteringsomebody’s garden; the criminal law8

inclusive of responsibility for thewelfare of a cat and cruelty offences.The research has resulted in adetailed research report as well as aplain English guide which hopefullywill serve as a simple referenceguide.9 The focus of this article is theduty to ensure welfare and itsapplication to cats.

The Legal Status of CatsThe common law position oncompanion animals is that they arepersonal property or chattels and are

2 · Journal of Animal Welfare Law · December 2014

8 Taking a cat from its owner is likely to be theft; i.e.removal of another’s property (Theft Act 1968); killinga cat, the property of another, criminal damage(Criminal Damage Act 1971).

9 Cats and the Law a Plain English Guide by AngusNurse and Diane Ryland is available for freedownload at: www.thecatgroup.org.uk

10See Blackstones Commentaries (Eighth ed. Vol. II. At387) which specifies that property rights in domestic

animals are the same as property rights in inanimateobjects but no such property rights can exist with wildanimals. It is worth noting that kittens belong to theowner of the mother cat.

11Farnworth, M. J., Nicholson, G. and Keown, N. (2010)The Legal Status of Cats in New Zealand: APerspective on the Welfare of Companion, Stray, andFeral Domestic Cats (Felis catus), Journal of AppliedAnimal Welfare Science, Volume 13 pp 180-188.

12In Radford, M. (2001) Animal Welfare Law in Britain,Oxford: Oxford University Press.

13Ibid. See also Wise, S. M. (2000) Rattling the Cage:Towards legal rights for animals, London: Profile, inwhich Steven Wise argues strongly that legal rights foranimals is a natural progression of human evolution,societal development and enlightened thinking.

14Francione GL, (2007) Animals, Property and the Law,Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

“ “

the issue of whether aperson can be said to

own a cat lends itself toboth theoretical and

legal debate

cats are considered tobe less domesticated

than other animals andare able to revert to a

semi-wild state by goingferal

“ “


lives within human control orsupport or is simply a visitor to ahuman home. Domestic cats arethose companion animals that areprimarily domesticated and rely onhumans for food, but behaviourallycats are considered to be lessdomesticated than other animals andare able to revert to a semi-wild stateby going feral. As shorthand; ‘owner’can be used to describe a person whohas legal ownership of a cat whichcan involve providing food for the cator a place within their home orgarden which the cat frequents. Inthe case of stray or feral cats this mayinclude regularly making foodavailable to the cat so that itfrequently returns to the human forfood and is in that person’s‘possession’ even if only temporarily.‘Responsible person’ describes aperson who accepts responsibility fora cat and its welfare even if they arenot the owner. This could includefriends who house sit for a cat. Theseterms are important because of theway that the law imposes differentobligations on owners andresponsible persons. However the keyissue is the duty to consider welfarewhich is the main focus of thisarticle; our contention being that thisis a significant shift in the law.

The Animal Welfare Acts and theDuty of WelfareThe UK Animal Welfare Acts imposea duty to ensure cat welfare,requiring owners or thoseresponsible15 for animals to ensuretheir welfare and to provide for eachof their animal’s basic needs, whichincludes: providing adequate foodand water; veterinary treatment; and

an appropriate environment in whichto live. The duty to ensure welfarehad previously only existed for farmanimals, although the Protection ofAnimals Act 1911 (as subsequentlyamended) contained the offence ofcausing unnecessary suffering to ananimal. The standard of carerequired is set out in DEFRA’s Codeof Practice for the Welfare of Cats.

It is important to note that theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 is part ofthe criminal law. It retains theoffence of causing unnecessarysuffering from previous legislationbut considerably refines its scope toincorporate both the active andpassive nature of an offence.Unnecessary suffering can thus becaused either by taking action whichcauses unnecessary suffering or byfailing to take appropriate steps toprevent unnecessary suffering.Inflicting pain, which may occur forexample in cruelty cases, is not initself sufficient to constituteunnecessary suffering even whereextreme pain is caused, as the painmay be caused for beneficial reasonssuch as in surgery to alleviate theharm caused to a cat, or othermedical treatment. It becomesnecessary, therefore, to distinguishbetween necessary suffering causedto a cat and unnecessary suffering. Inmaking this distinction the courtsare able to take into account anumber of factors such as whetherthe suffering could have been avoidedor whether it was incidental to alegitimate purpose. Factors to beconsidered include whether thesuffering could have been reduced,was carried out in compliance with

legislation, the conditions of alicence or a code of practice issuedon a statutory basis.16 The courtsmight also consider the purpose ofthe conduct, the proportionality ofthe suffering, and whether theconduct that caused the suffering wasthat of a reasonably competent andhumane person.

The concept of unnecessary sufferingis wide in scope and includes mentalas well as physical suffering. Thus itis an offence unnecessarily toinfuriate or terrify a protected animalin addition to, or instead of, causingphysical pain. While, for example, apolice horse on riot control dutymight suffer mental pain this isarguably ‘necessary’ for it to fulfil itslegitimate purpose of protectingpeople or property. However, a catwhich is tortured, before beinghumanely euthanised, has hadunnecessary suffering inflicted on it,and it is an offence for any person tocause unnecessary (physical ormental) suffering to a protectedanimal where the person committingthe act knew or ought reasonably tohave known, that the act wouldcause, or would be likely to cause,

3

15Section 3 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 defines‘responsible person’ and provides:1) In this Act , references to a person responsible are

to a person responsible for an animal whether on a permanent or temporary basis.

2) In this Act, references to being responsible for an animal include being in charge of it.

3) For the purposes of this Act, a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it.

4) For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be treated as responsible for any animal for which a person under the age of 16 years of whom he has actual care and control is responsible.

16The Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not apply toanything lawfully done under the Animals (ScientificProcedures) Act 1986.

“ “

it is an offence for anyperson to cause

unnecessary (physicalor mental) suffering to

a protected animal


suffering. In addition, where a personis responsible for an animal, hewould commit an offence ifunnecessary suffering was caused tothe animal by his failing to take someaction, where he knew or oughtreasonably to have known that theomission would cause, or would belikely to cause, suffering. It is notnecessary to show that the personactually knew that his act oromission would cause suffering, butonly that he ought to have known.

Current law is thus arguably positiveand proactive rather than negative byrequiring cat owners to do more thansimply provide a home for their catand refrain from cruel practices. Thelaw now requires owners and otherpersons responsible for a cat toconsider both the interior andexterior environment of their homeand to ensure so far as is possible,that it is suitable for the individualcat. Where they fail to do so, theymay commit an offence under theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 whichcontains provisions aimed atpreventing harm before it occurs aswell as provisions aimed atpromoting welfare. In our researchreport we contend that this is animportant change in the law ofimportance to cat owners who arenow responsible for ensuring thattheir cat’s needs are properlyconsidered in a way that effectivelygives cats’ legal protection frombeing kept in unsuitable conditions.While cats technically remain‘property’ as outlined earlier in thisarticle, the law now requires theirindividual needs to be considered andso anybody wishing to be a catowner and share their home with a

feline companions needs to have anawareness of their companion’sindividual characteristics.

The DEFRA Code of Practice isissued under Section 14 of theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 and appliesto all protected cats. The Act requiresthat all reasonable steps must betaken to ensure that the cat’sfollowing needs are provided for: a) its need for a suitable

environment;b) its need for a suitable diet;c) its need to be able to exhibit

normal behaviour patterns;d) any need it has to be housed with,

or apart from, other animals; ande) its need to be protected from pain,

suffering, injury or disease.

The Code of Practice can be takeninto account by the courts whenconsidering whether there has been abreach of the duty to provideappropriate welfare standards for acompanion and so is of relevance tocriminal enforcement of animalwelfare standards under the 2006Act. Because of the focus on theindividual cat, it is fair to say thatowners need some understanding ofhow their cats behave when fit,healthy and happy so that they canidentify any problems. The law alsoarguably prohibits a ‘standard’approach to cat care and insteadrequires one focused on the specificcompanion. In our Plain EnglishGuide we have sought to cover the

main responsibilities that ownersnow have and to outline the keyrequirements of the Code someaspects of which are explored furtherbelow.

Suitable EnvironmentThe Code recognises the territorialnature of cats and that althoughclassed as companions; domestic catswill spend significant periods of timeoutside. As a result, while owners arerequired to provide their cat with a‘safe, comfortable, dry, draught-free,clean and quiet place’ where it canrest undisturbed17 they are alsorequired to take ‘reasonable steps’ toprotect a cat from hazards indoorsand outdoors. While ‘reasonablesteps’ is not explicitly defined in theCode there is also specific referenceto making sure that a cat hasconstant access to safe hiding places,where it can escape if it feels afraid.As a result, cat owners need to ensureeither that they do not keep a cat inan unsafe or unsuitable environmentwhere the needs specific to a cat’sbehaviour are not catered for, or thatif they do so, they show that theyhave taken steps appropriate both tothe cat and the specificaccommodation that will so far as ispossible minimise any possible harmto the cat from indoor and outdoorhazards.

DietThe Code requires that the dietaryneeds of cats should be met,specifying the need to ensure thatcats do not become underweight oroverweight. Despite concerns that theprovisions may be onerous18 this isconsistent with the Act’s generalrequirement to prevent unnecessary


17Section 1, DEFRA Code of Practice for the Welfareof Cats.

18Derbyshire, D. (2008) Barking mad: Owners of obesedogs and fat cats could face jail under controversialnew rules, Daily Mail, Online version 05 November

2008. Available at: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083010/Barking-mad-Owners-obese-dogs-fat-cats-face-jail-controversial-new-rules.html#ixzz1ZFpkoAtc

it is fair to say thatowners need some

understanding of howtheir cats behave whenfit, healthy and happy

“ “


5

suffering whether physical or mentaland to ensure that good standards ofanimal welfare are maintained.However, this aspect of the Codeeffectively lays down minimumstandards that owners need tocomply with. Not only therequirement to provide fresh drinkingwater at all times and to provide abalanced diet suitable for a cat’sindividual needs, but also to monitorthe amount that the cat eats ordrinks and to seek advice concerningthe cat’s diet as required. The Codespecifically refers to the specialdietary requirements of certain cats(including cats that are ill) and theseprovisions when combined with theAct’s obligation to provide adequatestandards of animal welfare imposean active obligation on ownersregarding their cat’s dietary needs,explicitly linking dietary health andwelfare.

Normal BehaviourThe Code reflects the fact that catbehaviour varies according to a cat’sage, personality and pastexperiences.19 As outlined elsewherein this article, unnecessary sufferingcan be caused either by taking actionwhich causes unnecessary sufferingor by failing to take appropriate stepsto prevent unnecessary suffering.

Section 3 of the Code thus stipulatesthat cats are provided with enough‘mental, social and physicalstimulation’ to meet the individualneeds of a cat. The reference toindividual needs signifies that‘standard’ or minimum standards arenot enough and that the owner of anextremely active cat may need tomake additional provision to ensurethat this requirement is met. Whilethe Code requires that a cat isprovided with somewhere to scratch,for example a sturdy scratching post,an active cat with a wide territorymay require additional stimulationsuch that a single indoor post is notenough. The Code is explicit inspecifying that owners should knowhow their cat behaves when fit,healthy and happy, by implicationimposing an obligation on owners tobe aware of and monitor their cat’sbehaviour and notice any changes init. Failure to do so could be a breachof the Code and result inunnecessary suffering caused by afailure to take action.

HousingSection 4 of the Code places anobligation on owners to make surethat their cat has appropriatecompany. In keeping with otherprovisions of the Code, Section 4requires owners to consider theindividual needs of a cat and itsindividual sociability towards people,other cats and other animals. TheCode indicates that ‘a cat may sufferif it cannot avoid other cats it doesnot like’ 20 indicating that failure toprovide appropriate housing freefrom interaction with other animalscould constitute unnecessarysuffering. However the Code alsoindicates that owners should provideregular contact with people even

when they are away, for cats that likepeople.

Section 4 of the Code provides thatowners must appropriately considerthe socialisation needs of aparticular cat to the extent wherethey should either avoid having asecond cat or other companionanimal (e.g. a dog) if doing so wouldnegatively impact on their cat, orthat should they have another animalthey take appropriate steps bothgradually to introduce the newanimal into the home environment orto take additional steps to minimisecontact between animals that do notlike each other. This includesproviding extra resources (toys, beds,litter trays and hiding places) toallow cats to get away from eachother and also to ensure that theycan access everything they needwithout having to pass one anothertoo closely. This guidance means thatcat owners need to carefully consider,on the basis of an individual cat’sneeds, any decision to have morethan one cat or any other animal.Failure to do so could result in thecausing of unnecessary suffering eventhough this is done unintentionally.

Caring for cats in hot weather and onbonfire night warrants additional


“ “

failure to provideappropriate housing free

from interaction withother animals could

constitute unnecessarysuffering

an active cat with a wideterritory may requireadditional stimulation

such that a single indoorpost is not enough

“ “




welfare guidance in light of the legalduty of responsibility under theAnimal Welfare Act 2006. Thoseresponsible for the welfare of catsmust take account of the additionalguidance and advice obtainable fromDEFRA and which is available on itswebsite, 21 in order to discharge theirlegal responsibilities to their cats.

Protection from PainThe Code also places an enhancedobligation on owners to monitortheir cats for signs of injury or illnessand to ensure that somebody elsedoes this when the owner is away.While most cat owners will naturallykeep an eye on their animal’s health,the Code places an explicit, activeobligation on owners to do so and toseek veterinary (or otherappropriate) advice as soon aspossible in the event of injury orillness.

A New Conception of Animal WelfareThe law’s focus on the individualcompanion requires owners (andother responsible persons) to take aproactive role in understanding theircompanion’s behaviour and needs,thus developing an awareness of theadditional obligations this may placeon the owner under UK law. WhileDEFRA’s Code of Practice on theWelfare of Cats holds ‘advisory’status rather than itself beingenforceable, we argue that the Code’sguidance combined with the AnimalWelfare Act’s provisions changes thedynamics of liability such that actionmight be taken under the AnimalWelfare Act 2006, allowing courts toconsider a failure to provide thenecessary cat-friendly environmentrequired by the Act (in accordancewith the Code), as opposed to

considering, for example complaintsunder the specific nuisancerequirements of the EnvironmentalProtection Act 1990. Put another way,the scope of the action that might betaken against cat owners is widenedso that they need to consider theenvironment in which their cats arekept and any potential negativeconsequences of that environment ontheir cat’s health and wellbeing,including the impact of this onneighbours.

Several times in this article we referto considering the needs of theindividual cat. This is a central focusof the Animal Welfare Act 2006which is aimed at responsible animalownership requiring those whochoose to have companion animals totake a proactive role inunderstanding their companion’sbehaviour and needs. While it may atfirst glance appear complex, much ofwhat is contained within the law islikely to reflect the responsiblepractices that conscientious catowners have already adopted andwould wish to see in respect ofprotecting their companions fromharm.22

“ “

the Code’s guidancecombined with the

Animal Welfare Act’sprovisions changes the

dynamics of liability

21www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/06/03/pets-hot-weather/ ;http://archive.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/farmanimal/welfare/documents/fireworks.pdf

22The full Research Report on Cats and the Law by DrAngus Nurse and Diane Ryland is available online atboth the University of Lincoln and Middlesex

University Research Repositories and can be accessedvia each author’s name and respective University.


7

Case Reports, Updates andOther Materials

Patterson v RSPCA [2013] EWHC4531 (Admin)This case relates to an appeal againstconvictions for animal welfareoffences and concernsdisqualification orders andrestrictions on the control of animals.Patterson was convicted of animalcruelty offences and was subject to adisqualification order under Section34(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006making it a criminal offence for himto keep or have control or influenceover the way animals were kept.RSPCA Inspectors found a number ofanimals living with Patterson and hiswife, who claimed that all of theanimals were hers and she was solelyresponsible for their care. TheRSPCA considered that thedisqualification order was beingbreached and an agreement was madeto re home the animals. But on a latersearch the animals were still presentand it was concluded that Pattersonwas able to influence the way theywere kept. Both Patterson and hiswife were convicted of crueltyoffences but appealed, in partcontesting whether Patterson’s abilityto influence the animals’ careamounted to a breach of thedisqualification order.

The appeal was allowed in part.While one of the aims ofdisqualification orders is to prevent aperson convicted of cruelty offences

from having further control overanimals, Patterson’s being in aposition to influence the care of theanimals was not by itself conductwhich amounts to a breach of adisqualification order. The courtconcluded that for there to be abreach it was not sufficient to be ableto control or influence the way inwhich animals were kept, the personin question had to be entitled tocontrol or influence the way in whichthey were kept under an arrangementto which he was a party. While asuccessful prosecution could be drawnon inferences drawn from facts, itwould need to be the only sensibleinference from the facts not just apossible one. In this case, there wereinsufficient facts that would allow themagistrates to conclude that the onlysensible conclusion was that Pattersonhad cared for the animals in the past,had been responsible for their welfareand care or was now party to anarrangement under which he wasentitled to care for them. As a resultmagistrates were also not able toconvict Patterson’s wife for aiding andabetting him in breaching adisqualification order and thisconviction and Patterson’s convictionson all charges were quashed althoughhis wife’s appeal on four counts ofanimal cruelty was dismissed.

The case clarifies that the merepresence of a banned person in a

house containing animals or where hemight care for them in the event of anemergency requiring him to do so isnot by itself sufficient to amount tobreach of a disqualification order.

R (on the application of Gray andanother) v Aylesbury Crown Court[2013] EWHC 500 (Admin)Gray is a former horse trader. Thepolice seized 115 equines from hispremises under section 18a of theAnimal Welfare Act 2006 on groundsthat it was necessary to do so toprevent their likely suffering.

Gray was convicted of 11 offencesrelating to causing unnecessarysuffering and his wife JG was convictedof two offences. Gray was ordered topay £400,000 and JG was ordered topay £750 towards prosecution costs.The Crown Court allowed G’s appealin respect of two of convictions, butdismissed his appeal in respect of theother nine convictions. It dismissedJG’s appeal against conviction. Both Gand JG were ordered to pay £200,000each towards the prosecution’s costs ofthe appeal. Gray appealed against hisconvictions and the costs order againsthim, JG appealed against costs. Grayargued that sections 4 and 9 of the2006 Act required either actualknowledge or a form of constructiveknowledge that the animal wasshowing signs of unnecessary suffering,and that negligence was not sufficient.



practicable to wait for a veterinarysurgeon to issue a certificate undersubsection (5)’. Thus the seizureswere not unlawful despite theabsence of written certificates as theconstable who had seized the animalshad been acting lawfully under s18(6) it being the only viable way toproceed.

In respect of the duplication issue thecourt concluded that a convictionunder section 9 should not berecorded where the neglect provedunder section 9 was no wider thanthe conduct which had caused theunnecessary suffering for which therewas guilt under section 4. The courtshould not record a separateconviction for the less serious offencewhere this conduct was entirelysubsumed within the conduct subjectto guilt on the more serious offence;to do so would provide a potentiallymisleading entry on a person’srecord. However, here there was nocomplete duplication since some ofthe animals that were the subject ofthe charges under section 9 were notthe subject of the charges undersection 4. Accordingly, Gray’s claimfor judicial review in respect of hisconvictions was dismissed.

Non-Human Rights Project Inc. vs Lavery Appellate Court Hearing518336This case, which at time of writing(November 2014) is being heard bythe New York Supreme Court, isbrought by the Nonhuman RightsProject (NhRP) demanding that thecourt issue a writ of habeas corpus togrant Tommy the chimp the right tobodily liberty. Tommy is achimpanzee who is being kept in acage in a room in a warehouse inJohnstown, New York. The NhRPargues that Tommy is beingunlawfully imprisoned and thereforebeing deprived of his fundamentalcommon law right to bodily liberty.

He also argued that the evidencetaken from the analysis of samplestaken from the animals seized wasinadmissible since there had been nowritten certificate by a veterinarysurgeon, thus the seizures wereunlawful. He also argued that hisconvictions under section 9 weresubject to duplicity as they were basedupon the same findings of fact as hisconvictions under section 4. Separatearguments were made about the costsorders although the animal welfareissues are the relevant issue for thiscase report.

The Court held that Section 4(1)(b) ofthe 2006 Act clearly aimed to imposecriminal liability for unnecessarysuffering caused to an animal eitherby an act or omission which theperson responsible either had knownor should have known was likely tocause unnecessary suffering whetherby negligent act or omission. Section9(1) also sets an objective standard ofcare which a person responsible for ananimal is required to provide. Thisbeing the case, the distinction betweensection 4 and 9 is whether the animalhad suffered unnecessarily, not themental state of the person concerned.

The Court concluded that while thewording of section 18(5) of the 2006Act intended for any certification by aveterinary surgeon to be in writing,the wording of section 18(6) couldproperly be read as ‘not reasonably

The case concerns legal personhoodfor Tommy and its presentation inNew York relates to the New YorkCourt of Appeals having previouslyconcluded that legal personhood isnot synonymous with being a humanbeing. Legal personhood means thatthe entity counts in civil law. TheNhRP using the same sources as theNew York Court of Appeals, citesexamples of legal persons that arenot human beings including a river, areligious holy book, and a mosque.

The “Tommy” case is one of threecases filed by the NhRP in December2013 as the first ever lawsuits onbehalf of captive chimpanzees. Thesuits are based on 100 pages ofaffidavits filed by scientistsdemonstrating that chimpanzees areself-aware and autonomous, andtherefore entitled to be recognized as"legal persons" with certainfundamental legal rights. Thelawsuits ask the judge to grant thechimpanzees the right to bodilyliberty and order that they be movedto a North American PrimateSanctuary Alliance sanctuarymember. Alternatively they should goto "Save the Chimps," the world'slargest chimpanzee sanctuary locatedin Fort Pierce, FL, where they can liveout their days with others of theirkind in an environment as close tothe wild as is possible in NorthAmerica.

Steven Wise acting for the NhRPcommented in his 8 October 2014closing arguments on Tommy’s casethat: "The uncontroverted factsdemonstrate that chimpanzeespossess the autonomy and self –determination that are supremecommon law values that the writ ofhabeas corpus was constructed toprotect. Both common law libertyand equality entitle him to commonlaw habeas corpus personhoodwithin the meaning of Article 70."

the distinction betweensection 4 and 9 is whether

the animal had sufferedunnecessarily, not the

mental state of the person concerned

“ “


9

Case reports by Dr Angus Nurse, Senior Lecturerin Criminology, Middlesex University

Update: US court refuses to recognisecaged chimpanzee Tommy as a “legalperson” The New York State Appellate Court,Third Judicial Department issued itsdecision on December 5th 2014regarding the chimpanzee Tommy. Itsaid that Tommy cannot be recognisedas a legal person because he cannotbear any legal duties.

The Nonhuman Rights Project arguesthat chimpanzees are so similar tohumans that they deserve basic rights,including freedom. It said it willappeal against the decision.

http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2014/12/04/appellate-court-decision-in-tommy-case/

NewsBirds of prey deathsAllen Lambert, a gamekeeper on theStody Estate in Norfolk, was foundguilty of deliberately killing tenbuzzards and a sparrow hawk atNorwich Magistrates Court inOctober 2014. He was also foundguilty of possessing pesticides andother items used in the preparation ofpoison baits. Lambert pleaded guiltyto five other charges, including theillegal use of pesticides, the BBCreports.

The RSPB described the case as the“worst bird of prey poisoning” it hadseen in England and was one of theworst ever in the UK.

District Judge Peter Veits said theoffences had "crossed the custodythreshold". Lambert received a 10-week jail sentence, suspended for oneyear. He was also ordered to payprosecution costs.

Judge Veits said: "In other industriesemployers as well as the employeecould be facing prosecution in suchcases, and I hope therefore that thiscase can serve as a wake-up call to allwho run estates as to their duties."

The RSPB is calling on the governmentto bring in legislation which makessporting estates more accountable inrelation to the actions of staff.

The Stody Estate said it had not“authorised, trained or asked”Lambert to kill Wildlife. The StodyEstate is being investigated by theRural Payments Agency – which couldwithdraw current subsidies, if theestate is found to have been negligent.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-29931463

Euro-group for Animals – CampaignsExotic Pets are increasing inpopularity with the EU as a topimporter of tropical fish, reptiles,birds and mammals, many of whomare unsuited to a life in captivity. Thekeeping of exotic pets has negativeimplications for biodiversity in thecountries of origin, animal welfareand public health. There is minimallegislation to protect the welfare ofexotic animals and to monitor non-CITES trade. The regulation of theprivate keeping and sale of wildanimals is let to EU member statesleading to great variability betweenone country and the next. Eurogroupplans to target the following areas foraction: positive lists to restrict thekeeping and sale of exotic pets;increased welfare provisions andprevention measures in EU regulations

on Invasive Alien Species, AnimalHealth Law, possible Animal WelfareFramework Law and within TradeAgreements; and targeted educationto raise awareness of pet owners onmaking suitable choices.

For more information see http://eurogroupforanimals.org/get-involved/the-need-for-national-and-eu-action-to-protect-wild-and-exotic-animals

Equine Welfare – the need forspecific welfare legislationIn 2014, Eurogroup for Animalslaunched an important project toensure EU’s 6 million horses and 1.5million donkeys are covered byspecies specific legislation. There isno specific EU legislation to protectequine welfare. Eurogroup arguesthat equine welfare falls in betweenlaws designed to protect farm andcompanion animals. The equinesector continues to grow withequines being one of the most tradedand transported animals in Europe.As such, are in need of urgentprotection to ensure their welfare.

Eurogroup and World Horse Welfarehave undertaken a research processmapping of the equine sector, therole of regulation and equine welfareand health issues. This should bepublished shortly withrecommendations for improvements.

See http://eurogroupforanimals.org/get-involved/act4equines-europe-must-act-on-horse-welfare/

Castration of PigsThe EU is the world’s largestexporter of pig meat with around150 million pigs being farmed in theEU annually. There are manyconcerns relating to pig welfare. Onemajor concern is the very large scale(around 100 million pigs each year)of surgical castration carried out in

Exotic Pets are increasingin popularity with the EU

as a top importer oftropical fish, reptiles,birds and mammals

“ “


the absence of anaesthesia oranalgesia. In 2010, the EuropeanDeclaration on the Alternatives toSurgical Castration of Pigs (BrusselsDeclaration) was signed by 24signatories pledging to end surgicalcastration by 2018. However, little hashappened to date. Eurogroup withkey countries and om thisBOARS2018 plan to launch a country-by-country campaign to end thiscruelty.

See http://eurogroupforanimals.org/get-involved/european-pig-castration-campaign/

ReportsThe Unaccounted Dead: farming’sunofficial victimsAnimal Aid has produced a landmarkreport which exposes the number offarmed animals, estimated to bearound 43 million each year, who diethrough disease, road accidents,exposure, starvation, fire, floodingand neglect. The report documentsthe following incidents:

700,000 chickens drown on adjoiningfarms located on a flood plain. Thechicken sheds are being rebuilt on thesame dangerous site.

200,000 pigs are killed in a fire at afarm. Six months later more than 600pigs die in another fire at the samefarm.

A North Yorkshire farmer’s extremeneglect of his animals led to the deathof 350 sheep yet he continues to farm.

The report can be downloaded athttp://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/n/AA/HOME/

Book ReviewFarmageddon: the true cost of cheapmeat, by Philip Lymbery with Isabel

Oakeshott. (Bloomsbury Publishing:London, 2014, paperback ISBN: 978-14088-4644-5, 448 pages, £12.99)

Perhaps you are about to read thisreview whilst tucking into a fullEnglish breakfast after a heavy nightout? Or maybe you have pouredyourself a refreshing glass of coldmilk, reassured by the marketing hypethat it is a healthy, pure product fromMother Nature, rich in nutrients andprotein? Just what you need after astrenuous session down the gym?Perhaps I have caught you as you areabout to sit down to a light supper ofsmoked Scotch salmon before relaxingin front of the TV for your Saturdayevening fix of Come Dine with Me.Low in fat and calories, high inprotein – what could be healthier?

Whatever your culinary routine, afterreading Philip Lymbery’s book youare unlikely to ever view your food inthe same way again. Lymbery, thecurrent Chief Executive Officer ofCompassion in World Farming(“CWF”), tours the industrial farmsof the world in an attempt to unveiltheir true social, environmental,health, economic and animal welfareimpacts which he contests aredeliberately concealed fromconsumers by 'interested parties' whobenefit from the perpetuation of amorally bankrupt, inhumane, andfrequently hazardous to humanhealth, system of mass factoryfarming. The public are lulled into afalse sense of security about their foodby clever marketing and prettypackaging, until a scandal breaksout – such as when it was discoveredthat horsemeat had been used in the‘beefburgers’ sold by major UKsupermarket chains in 2013.

Lymbery’s approach is part lobbying,part investigative journalism, as heexposes the inefficiencies and crueltyof a mechanised food system that is so

often misrepresented to the public,and impoverished farmers alike, asthe only solution to feeding an everincreasing world population andmeeting the rapacious demands ofsupermarkets and chain-restaurants.

Much has already been written aboutFarmageddon’s findings and proposedsolutions in the press. The currentreviewer does not intend to repeatthese here, but instead, highlightconclusions of the book which are ofparticular interest to animal welfarelawyers and lobbyists campaigningagainst cruel practices inindustrialised farming:1) Understand the ‘power pyramid’:

Lymbery states that a campaignfor change will be most effective ifit targets each level of what hecalls the ‘power pyramid’. In theUK, Lymbery states, that theMinister for Agriculture is at thetop of the pyramid, propped upby legions of unelected civilservants, MPs and lastly, theconsumer (also known as theelectorate). Lymbery exemplifiesthe success this approach can haveby referring to CWF’s campaignagainst the use of chains andrestraining collars on pregnantpigs in the UK back in the early‘90s. Initially introduced as aPrivate Member’s Bill, the ban wasfilibustered out by opponentsdespite an overwhelming numberof MPs being in favour of it.Nonetheless, the bill, with itscelebrity support, garnered wide-spread publicity and fuelleddebate which put pressure on theMinister for Agriculture to reactto the CWF's campaign and banthe barbaric practice.


“ “

The public are lulledinto a false sense of

security about their foodby clever marketing and

pretty packaging


2) Recognise that retailers have morepower than legislators andregulators: veteran campaignerslike Lymbery recognise that thecumbersome and bureaucraticnature of national and supra-national legislatures means thatresources are often better deployedif they target consumers directlyas opposed to politicians. Thebook gives the example of thepainfully slow process by whichthe EU is seeking to ban batterycages for chickens. AlthoughBrussels gave farmers twelve yearsto get rid of their cages in 1999,around half of the EU’s MemberStates were still not ready for theban at the beginning of 2012. Bycontrast, since CWF introduced its‘Good Egg Awards’ in 2007, nearly500 British companies havepledged to stop using or stockingbattery eggs altogether, includingbig brands like Sainsbury’s,Starbucks and Unilever.

3) Make full use of informationlegislation where available:Lymbery cites the successful useof the Freedom of InformationAct 2000 by animal welfarecampaigners in Scotland to provethat 80 per cent of Scottishintensive fish farmers did not haveanti-predator nets, despite theAnimal Health and WelfareScotland Act 2006 ('AHWSA')mandating that fish stock beadequately protected againstpredators. The absence of suchnets increased the likelihood thatseals, tempted by their abundantfish stocks, would be shot, eventhough the AHWSA stressedshooting should only be used as alast resort.

4) The strategic use of privateprosecutions could raise publicawareness of an issue and forcechange, even if the prosecutionitself fails: in the 1980s CWFlaunched a private prosecution

against some monks for rearingveal calves in a ‘crating’ system,charging them with nine counts ofcruelty under the Protection ofAnimals Act 1911 and the Act of1968. The prosecution itself failed,with CWF paying £12,000 in costs.Nevertheless, Lymbery contendsthat it was money well spentbecause the media picked up thestory and the public voiced theiroutrage, forcing supermarkets todrop veal and the government toeventually ban veal cratesaltogether.

5) Be prepared for possible use oflegal process by opponents tofrustrate change: fromfilibustering Private Members’Bills in Parliament that aredesigned to outlaw cruel practicesto launching spurious lawsuits inan attempt to drain the financialreserves and test the mentalendurance of whistleblowers,Farmageddon is full of examplesof the desperate measures theindustrial farming machine willundertake in order to protect thestatus quo. Whilst such tacticsmay be familiar to us, they maynot be to small farmers orresidents of a rural village whenthey come into conflict with thepower of the industrial farmingmachine for the first time.Accordingly, Farmageddon offersanimal welfare lawyers andlobbyists an invaluable insight into

the impact such misuses of legalprocess can have on the lives of thevictims of industrial farmingwhich can be used to adequatelyprepare future clients/supportersof the challenges they will face intaking on the system.

These conclusions alone makeFarmageddon essential reading for theanimal welfare lawyer or lobbyist and,of course, the consumer. This iswithout even considering any of thenumerous shocking examples cited inthe book of the damage thatindustrial farming is wreaking uponthe planet. These include: pumpinglivestock with so many hormones,antibiotics and vaccines that bacteriaand viruses eventually becomeresistant to them, threatening not onlyanimals but also humans; keeping somany cattle and pigs in enclosuresthat the waste they produce is notevenly distributed on farmland, butinstead kept in large tanks which leak,or worse, threaten to burst, pollutingnearby rivers and coastlines anddestroying their ecosystems; usingcloning to breed animals selected fortheir ‘superior’ genetic qualities, butwhich actually often result in seriousbirth defects and discomfort for theresultant clones. One could go on.And on.

If the book has one drawback from alawyer’s perspective, it is the fact thatcases and the relevant legislationutilised are not listed in a tabularformat which can be easily revisitedfor future reference. However, oneshould acknowledge that this is not alegal textbook but a call to armsissued by one of the world’s mostdistinguished animal welfarecampaigners. If we choose to ignoreit, we do so at our, and our futuregenerations, peril.

Book review by Alexander ConradCulley Barrister (England and Wales)

11

“ “

British companies havepledged to stop using or

stocking battery eggsaltogether, including bigbrands like Sainsbury’s



It has been a widely publicisedand well-documented matterthat domestic violence is anongoing and longstanding issue.

Recent proposals to make domesticabuse a free-standing criminal offenceindependent of any other violentoffence have been greeted with apositive response.1

In March 2013 the definition ofdomestic abuse was broadened toinclude financial and emotional abuseas well as matters of a physical andsexual nature.2 Most recently, theshadow home secretary, Yvette Cooperannounced a £3 million fund fordomestic violence victims at the

Labour Party Conference on 24September.3

The trauma felt by spouses, partnersand children suffering or fleeingdomestic abuse is recognised by manyas intolerable and unacceptable. Butthe plight felt by domestic pets is alltoo often overlooked. The manner inwhich a pet is used and abused by theperpetrator is not often forgotten bythose who have witnessed this type ofexploitation. Recently the case ofAmie Smith hit the headlines whopleaded guilty, earlier this year toanimal neglect as a result of starvingher two-year old Bull Terrier, Rockyto death. Smith claimed she had failedto return for the dog as a result of anabusive relationship.4 Whilst in the USRyan Eddy Watenpaugh was arrestedfor alleged animal cruelty afterclaiming to have cooked his partner’spet Pomeranian and serving it to heras an act of revenge.5

A means to manipulationThe Dog’s Trust welfare charityreleased posed pictures earlier thissummer in an attempt to highlight thelink between domestic abuse and the

sufferer’s household pets. In onepicture a Great Dane stands with itsleg wrapped in blue plaster, captioned‘…I fell down the stairs’. Whilstanother shows a Bull Terrier with ablack eye, peering from behind akitchen cabinet door, captioned ‘I hitmy head on the cupboard’. This alsohighlights the behaviour of victimswhen attempting to disguise theperpetrator’s brutality.6

The perpetrator either physicallyabuses the animal or threatens to doso as a manner of manipulating thevictim7 – this tactic commonly beingseen in cases involving children.

Some victims of domestic violencehave reported remaining with theirpartners for fear of harm to their petor as a result of harm the perpetratorhas inflicted on them in the past.8 Inone study, 70.3% of women fleeingdomestic violence reported threats toor actual harm being inflicted upontheir pet, with 54% of womenreporting actual harm.9

So when fleeing domestic abuse, whatare the options when it comes to a

Domestic Violence: The Impact on Pets

Christina Warner, ALAW Trustee

1 Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron vows to considercreating domestic violence offence’, The Guardian, 25July 2014

2 Ghai, Mandip, ‘Domestic Violence update – what apractitioner needs to know’, Family Law Week, 11September 2014

3 Cohen, Claire, ‘Labour to announce £3m fund fordomestic violence victims’, The Telegraph, 24September 2014

4 Flint, Hannah, ‘Walker dog owner left her bull terrierto starve to death in an act of cruelty deemed theworst in 30 years’, www.chroniclelive.co.uk, 24September 2014

5 Dearden, Lizzie, ‘Man ‘who killed girlfriend’s dog andfed it to her’ is arrested in US’, The Independent, 13September 2014

6 Winter, Stuart, ‘Animal abuse is first sign of domesticabuse risk’, The Express, 13 July 2014

7 Bartlett, Nicola, ‘Pets manipulated by abusers in Waleswarn RSPCA’, www.walesonline.co.uk, 28 September2014s.

8 As advised by Refuge at http://www.refuge.org.uk/get-help-now/what-about-pets/

9 ‘Animal Cruelty/Domestic Violence: The link’, as perhttp://www.peteducation.com/article.cfm?c=2+2100&aid=3120

Some victims ofdomestic violence havereported remaining withtheir partners for fear of

harm to their pet

“ “


13

beloved pet? Many refuges provideshelter for women and childrenfleeing violence but many are unableto provide the same for their pets.10

Planning aheadFortunately, the issue of domesticabuse affecting family pets is beingacknowledged as an increasing oneand some websites are offering adviceto owners when assessing theiroptions. The Animal WelfareInstitute in Washington DC providesadvice for considering pets whenremaining with or fleeing from theperpetrators of domestic violence.11

Upon advising those choosing toremain with their partners; victimsare advised to ensure that they have ahidden, emergency provision of foodfor their pet to provide if theirpartner withholds money from them.Documentation to prove ownershipof the animal, such as vet bills,should also be secured. Thoseplanning on leaving with their pet areadvised to change all vet’s details andto take belongings familiar to theanimal such as their favourite toy orbedding to ensure their transition tonew surroundings will be as easy aspossible. For those who have alreadyleft the perpetrator taking their pet

with them, they are advised to keepthe pet indoors, especially if theirnew address is known to theperpetrator and not to walk theirpets alone on unfamiliar routes.

PetRetreat, the Freedom Project andPaws for KidsAs a result of many victims ofdomestic abuse being unable to taketheir pets with them to refuges orshelters, the RSPCA establishedPetRetreat which provides atemporary fostering service for petsbelonging to sufferers of domesticabuse. Since 2002 it has helped 1200animals belonging to 800 familiesfleeing such violence. 12 Whilst theDog’s Trust founded the FreedomProject and the charity, Paws forKids, based in the North West alsoprovide similar fostering services forhousehold pets.

A survey conducted by the PetOwners Association has reportedthat 94% of victims of domesticabuse would have left the perpetratorearlier had they known of a petfostering service, therefore savingthem from further abuse. 13

Studies have found animal abuse isdirectly associated to an increasedrisk of harm to children within thesame household. 14 With ClareKivieha, Manager of the FreedomProject stating that ‘animal abuse canbe the first visible sign that a familyis living with the threat of domesticviolence.’ 15 Whilst, the reverse canalso be said, in that those reported orconvicted of domestic abuse mayalso have tendencies to demonstratethe same behaviour towards animals.A reported example of this being

Matthew Hawksworth who wasconvicted of animal cruelty afterbeing found to have inflicted brokenbones and bruises to hisStaffordshire Bull Terrier puppy inSeptember this year. Hawksworth’sprevious convictions includedmatters involving both harassmentand domestic violence. 16

In a proactive and pragmatic movetowards tackling the issue, vets arebeing recruited and trained inScotland to spot the signs of thedomestic abuse in their animalpatients. 17 Scottish vets are beingadvised on how to manage ownersof animals brought in with ‘unlikelystories’, similarly to the manner inwhich pharmacists are trained toassist women suspected of beingvictims of rape or sexual abuseseeking contraceptives or painkillers.The Domestic Abuse VeterinaryInstitute developed by Scottishcharity, Medics Against Violence willassist in training vets in encouragingsuspected victims of domestic abuseto report matters to the police orrefer them on to organisations whowill be able to support them further.

Tragically, as with most issuesconcerning animal welfare thestories of the victims frequently gountold. Hopefully with theseservices in place to temporarilyhouse pets it will enable sufferers ofdomestic abuse to alleviate theirfears sooner rather than later.

“ “

the RSPCA establishedPetRetreat which provides

a temporary fosteringservice for pets belongingto sufferers of domestic

abuse

“ “

vets are being recruitedand trained in Scotlandto spot the signs of thedomestic abuse in their

animal patients

10Commentary by the International Fund for AnimalWelfare at http://www.ifaw.org/united-kingdom/our-work/cats-and-dogs/united-kingdom-protecting-pets-domestic-violence

11‘Safety Planning for Pets of Domestic ViolenceVictims’, as advised by the Animal Welfare Institute athttps://awionline.org/content/safety-planning-pets-domestic-violence-victims

12http://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/petretreat13‘Pets caught up in domestic violence’, commentary

at http://www.pet-owners.co.uk/index.php/articles/detail/pet_link_appeals_for_help

14ibid 1115ibid 6

16Mathews, Jane, ‘Thug who BIT and punched puppyescapes jail’, The Express, 1 September 2014

17‘Vets are recruited in fight against domestic violencein Scotland’, The Daily Record, 20 April 2013


What is ALAW?ALAW is an organisation of lawyers interested in animal protection law. We see our role as pioneering a better legal framework for animals and ensuring that the existing law isapplied properly.

We believe that lawyers should, as well asinterpreting laws, ask questions about thephilosophy underlying them: they have alwaysplayed a central role in law reform. There is also areal need to educate professionals and the publicalike about the law.

Animal cruelty does not, of course, recognisenational boundaries and we are building up anetwork of lawyers who are interested in animalprotection in many different countries.

What ALAW will do?ALAW will:• take part in consultations and monitor

developments in Parliament and in European and other relevant international organisations,

• highlight areas of animal welfare law in need of reform,

• disseminate information about animal welfare law, including through articles, conferences, training and encouraging the establishment of tertiary courses,

• through its members provide advice to NGOs and take appropriate test cases,

• provide support and information exchange for lawyers engaged in animal protection law.

Who can be a member?Solicitors, trainee solicitors, legal executives,barristers, pupil barristers, judges and legalacademics are eligible to join and will receiveregular issues of the Journal of Animal WelfareLaw. Other interested parties can becomesubscribers to the Journal and receive informationabout conferences and training courses.

How can you help?Apart from animal protection law itself, expertise in many other areas is important - forexample, public law, civil liberties, environmentalhealth, planning law, freedom of information, civil litigation, media law, company law andcharity law.

In addition, lawyers have well-developed generalskills such as advocacy and drafting which areuseful in many ways. Help with training andcontributions to the Journal are also welcome.

How to contact us: Email [email protected] or write to ALAW, c/o Clair Matthews, Monckton Chambers, 1&2 Raymond Buildings, Grays Inn, London WC1R 5NRwww.alaw.org.uk


alaw journal december 2014 layout 1 17/12/2014 15:14 page ...€¦ · farmageddon: the true cost of...

Documents