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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll