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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll