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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll