header-logo header-logo

Animal cruelty sentences increased

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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll