header-logo header-logo

Punishment upped for animal cruelty

11 May 2022
Issue: 7978 / Categories: Legal News , Animal welfare
printer mail-detail
Tail docking, animal fighting, animal mutilation, administering poison and causing unnecessary suffering are to be given more severe sentences, under proposed Sentencing Council guidelines

The proposed guidelines, published this week, reflect changes introduced by the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021, which increased the maximum penalty for the above offences from six months to five years in prison. The Sentencing Council proposes a range of sentences between a fine and three years in custody.

Prior to the 2021 Act, these offences were summary only, but they have now been made either way offences which means they can be tried in both magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court. The proposed guideline for serious offences will apply in both courts.

For the offence of failing to ensure animal welfare, which is summary only, the maximum penalty is an unlimited fine and six months custody. The Sentencing Council proposes a range between a fine and 26 weeks’ custody.

Under the Sentencing Council proposals, the most serious offences, sadistic or extreme cases or those carried out in the context of commercial or organised criminal activity would be assessed at the highest culpability. Multiple incidents or the use of significant force would also increase culpability.

Cases where the animal died or sustained life-threatening injuries, or was caused substantial pain or suffering, would attract a higher sentence than previously. Aggravating factors include sharing images of the cruelty on social media, committing the cruelty in the presence of children, or ill-treating a significant number of animals.

Sentencing Council member Judge Rosa Dean, said: ‘Animals are not able to defend themselves or draw attention to their suffering, and it is important that courts have the powers to deliver appropriate sentences to offenders who commit these crimes.’

The Animal cruelty sentencing guidelines consultation ends on 1 August. View it here.

Issue: 7978 / Categories: Legal News , Animal welfare
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

Excello Law—Heather Horsewood & Darren Barwick

North west team expands with senior private client and property hires

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Ward Hadaway—Paul Wigham

Firm boosts corporate team in Newcastle to support high-growth technology businesses

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