Legal

If you are unfortunate enough to have a visit from the RSPCA, say as little as possible to them and video everything if possible, ask for everything from them in writing and sign nothing, remember the RSPCA have no powers to enter your property or examine your animals, nor are they qualified to advise you about their welfare.

Is the animal welfare act being used as it was intended?

The above is a valid question and until or unless all parts are properly and effectively challenged in the courts it will remain so. Remember the joint enterprise law was ruled, by the supreme court in 2016, to have been misused/misinterpreted/unlawful for 30 years.

It cannot be denied that animal welfare in the UK is in a mess. Despite the government always claiming that they care about this matter, they have failed time and time again when it comes to many aspects of animal welfare and we ask the government to rectify this.

Some offences within the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are too subjective, open to interpretation/misinterpretation and manipulation.

Even in the, 'expert witness approach to unnecessary suffering', which can be downloaded from downloads section on this page, it states:

 “courts may come to different conclusions upon similar facts” (Radford, 2001) and that “there is significant room for ambiguity and subjective interpretation within the statutes” (Calley, 2011).

An 'independent' review of the prosecution activity of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) by Stephen Wooler (2014) suggested that there was “no commonality to the approach nor apparently a commonly recognised professional standard” amongst expert witnesses which was likely to be “a source of ongoing contention and mutual criticisms.” 

Section 18, 19, 20, 23 and schedule 2 of the animal welfare act 2006, PACE section 19.

Considering under the Animal Welfare act section 18, Powers in relation to animals in distress, your animal can be taken into possession by a constable or inspector (inspector appointed under the act, not an RSPCA inspector) if the animal is deemed to be suffering or is likely to suffer! Bearing in mind this is the section the RSPCA get the police to use most often to take animals away so they (the RSPCA) can prosecute, what offence do any of those two descriptors create? especially the one of 'likely to suffer if it's circumstances do not change', think about that for a moment.

Under section 4 of the animal welfare act the offence is UNNECESSARY SUFFERING, not merely suffering. We cannot find anywhere in the act where it states an offence of LIKELY TO SUFFER.

Suffering is totally different to unnecessary suffering. Any animal who is unwell or in pain, for whatever reason, is most likely suffering to some extent, that however does not automatically make the suffering unnecessary, when any animal is taken into possession the custodian, in most cases, does not instantly stop any and all suffering, unless euthanasia is used.

Some suffering is inevitable and can only be classed unnecessary when no action has been taken to relieve that suffering.

Was section 18 intended to be used in the way the RSPCA encourage the police to use it?, if you read this section very carefully it appears not to have been written with the detection or investigation of offences as it's priority!. Was it a section to be used more in emergencies, where offences may not, necessarily, have been committed? (though in some instances an offence may have been committed also), so animals can be saved in such emergencies, for example a dog locked in a hot car and the owner is unknown and not around?. It stands to reason that the dog is LIKELY TO SUFFER IF IT'S CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CHANGE, if it isn't already suffering as could any animal in an emergency/dangerous situation!. It must be remembered not all emergency or dangerous situations automatically create an offence under the animal welfare act 2006.

Having regard to section 20 of the animal welfare act 2006 it appears that section 18 was more than likely intended to be used in emergencies and for the protection of animals, as section 20 provides for applications to be made to a court by the owner, (as well as others), in respect of any animal/s taken into possession under section 18(5). Do RSPCA encourage constables to take animals into possession under section 18(5) as it is the only section which allows them to make an application to the courts for ownership under section 20 of the animal welfare act 2006?. Though having regard to the law under which, animals are property, animals do not have rights, section 18, or parts of, could be in breach of human rights.

A request for return of property (which section 20 allows) seized in the connection with or for detection of offences, would surely be made on application to the court under, police (property) act 1897 1(1)/Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, section 59, where the police have seized property?.

Further, regard being given to section 23 of the animal welfare act 2006, a warrant can be issued to enter premises when, there are reasonable grounds for believing—

(i) that a relevant offence has been committed on the premises, or

(ii) that evidence of the commission of a relevant offence is to be found on the premises.

“relevant offence” means an offence under any of sections 4 to 9, 13(6) and 34(9).

Is an animal evidence of the commission of a relevant offence? The RSPCA claim to keep hold of the animals as they are evidence and part of the investigation?. If so, there is obvious conflict and contradiction between this section and section 18 and the way they are being used. Having due regard for schedule 2, add to this that animals can also be seized under PACE section 19 as evidence. Further, looking at section 19, which gives Power of entry for section 18 purposes, this section throws even further argument and conflict into section 18 and its correct use against the way it is being used.

Having due regard to everything contained or omitted from these mentioned sections, (please note sections 18, 19 and 20 make no mention as to offences under the act, not even section 19 (4)), does it all point to the fact that section 18 is not intended for routine use to remove animals in relation to offences under the act?, in fact did the government really intend for mass removal of animals?, especially into unsuitable and often no better, or sometimes worse, conditions than they were in fact removed from!. 

Within the Law Commissions consultation paper on search warrants was:

DIFFERENT TYPES OF SEARCH WARRANTS 

2.6 In the course of this project we have identified 176 different legislative provisions across 

138 separate statutes authorising the issue of a search warrant, listed in Appendix 1. 

The various powers to issue search warrants are designed to serve different purposes, 

from which it is possible to identify three broad themes:

(1) in many cases, the purpose of the warrant is to empower an investigator to search 

for evidence of a crime; 

(2) in some cases, the search under warrant forms part of a larger or more 

specialised investigation, which is not necessarily confined to investigations 

undertaken for the purposes of a possible future prosecution;

and

(3) in other cases, the purpose of the warrant is to authorise a search for dangerous 

materials or persons or animals in distress or danger or otherwise to remedy a 

dangerous or undesirable situation.

3 above surely includes a warrant under 19(4) of the AWA 2006, with no mention of crime or offences as the purpose.

Moving onto MAY SUFFER IF ITS CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CHANGE, do we really believe that such a statement could/would be used fairly and proportionally when gathering evidence for the investigation of an offence? or is the term so broad it is immediately open to abuse?. Is this in line with the gathering of evidence in relation to an offence. Is it indeed fair, as it literally could cover any and every situation the constable, or more correctly the RSPCA, want it to fit!. Thinking of fairness, under what other legislation can your property, which is not illegal to possess, be removed which is comparable to this?, if you know of any please let us know. Children can be removed under very similar legislation, however that is to protect them, as children, being humans have rights, which animals do not have. Does that make this incompatible with human rights?.

(This is not a debate about whether animals should have rights or not, this is about the law as it stands).