header-logo header-logo

10 May 2023
Issue: 8024 / Categories: Legal News , Animal welfare , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Animal cruelty sentences increased

Judges and magistrates have for the first time been given sentencing guidelines for the most serious animal cruelty offences, including tail docking, ear cropping, fighting and causing unnecessary suffering.

The Sentencing Council issued two guidelines this week. Its ‘Animal cruelty’ guideline reflects the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum penalty for the most serious offences from six months to five years in prison.

The council suggests a starting point of two years’ custody for high culpability offences—prolonged or repeated incidents, sadistic behaviour, use of very significant force, a leading role in illegal activity or involvement of others through coercion or intimidation. Sentences for low culpability offences, such as well-intentioned but incompetent care or involvement due to coercion or intimidation by others, would start with a community order. 

Judges should then weigh up the level of harm caused or intended. There are three levels, ranging from category one (death, injury requiring the animal to be put down, life-threatening injury or very high level of pain and suffering) through category two (lasting effect, such as tail docking, ear cropping or other mutilation, or substantial pain and suffering) to category three (little physical pain or distress).

Aggravating factors include previous convictions, motivation provided by protected characteristics of the animal’s keeper, involvement of significant numbers of animals, use of technology to record or promote cruelty, and offences committed in the presence of children. Mitigating factors include voluntary surrender of the animals to the authorities, and the offender having been given an inappropriate level of trust or responsibility.

The second guideline, ’Failure to ensure animal welfare’, applies to the Animal Welfare Act 2006 offence of breach of duty to ensure welfare. It applies in magistrates’ courts only and introduces aggravating factors where a significant number of animals have been harmed, the offender had a professional responsibility for the animals, or the offence was motivated by financial gain.

Sentencing Council member Judge Rosa Dean said: ‘The new guidelines will guarantee that courts have the powers to deliver appropriate sentences to offenders who mistreat animals.’

Both guidelines, which apply to the sentencing of adults only, are effective from 1 July. 

Issue: 8024 / Categories: Legal News , Animal welfare , Criminal
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll