Alec Jarrett Ltd v Bristol Magistrates Court

Case name: Alec Jarrett Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Bristol Magistrates Court 

Citation: [2025] EWHC 1674 (Admin) Date of judgment: 10 July 2025

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/6873fb51ff0b307272b3721c 

Background

This judicial review was brought by Alec Jarrett Ltd and associated individuals to challenge the lawfulness of a Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecution under regulation 30(1) of the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 ('WATOK'). The prosecution arose from an alleged incident on 19 October 2022 at the company’s slaughterhouse. The case turned largely on whether the CPS had lawful prosecutorial authority and on the division of enforcement and prosecutorial functions under animal welfare legislation, especially in light of the 2019 Official Controls (Animals, Feed and Food, Plant Health, etc.) Regulations ('Official Controls Regulations').

Facts

On 19 October 2022, alleged WATOK breaches occurred during slaughter operations at the claimants’ premises. The CPS issued a requisition on 20 September 2023 initiating prosecution.

The claimants argued that, due to EU-derived provisions (Article 138 of the Official Controls Regulation 2017/625, implemented in the UK via the 2019 Official Controls Regulations), the Food Standards Agency (FSA) was the only competent authority able to take enforcement action in slaughterhouses.

The Claimant also claimed the 2011 Assignment of prosecutorial functions from the Secretary of State to the CPS was either invalid or ineffective in this context.

Legal Issues

The case explored whether the Secretary of State had inherent prosecutorial authority under WATOK given that it does not expressly name a prosecutor.

In addition, in 2011, the Attorney General, using section 3(2)(g) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, formally assigned the Secretary of State’s prosecutorial functions for certain animal welfare offences, including WATOK breaches, to the CPS so that prosecutions would be conducted centrally rather than by government departments. The case considered whether the 2011 Assignment of prosecutorial powers from the Secretary of State to the CPS was valid and effective. If the Assignment were invalid, the case considered whether the CPS could rely on general powers under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.

Furthermore, the case looked at the FSA as the competent authority under Article 138 of EU Regulation 2017/625 (and the domestic Official Controls Regulations 2019) and whether it held exclusive enforcement powers for slaughterhouse animal welfare offences, thereby excluding the CPS.

The Defendant also argued that in the event the Claimant was successful, that relief should be refused under section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 on the basis that the same outcome would have occurred regardless.

Judgment

The court held that WATOK does not designate a single prosecuting authority, so any person may prosecute unless statute expressly prohibits it. The Secretary of State, as a corporation sole, therefore held prosecutorial authority.

The 2011 Assignment was made under section 3(2)(g) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 and was valid. It was part of a deliberate transfer of functions, not merely descriptive, and conferred full prosecutorial power on the CPS for these offences.

The court rejected the claimants’ argument that the Official Controls Regulations 2019 gave the FSA exclusive authority to prosecute slaughterhouse animal welfare breaches. The court found that the enforcement powers given to the FSA were forward-looking and remedial, aimed at securing compliance, not punitive criminal sanctions. The court found that no language in either the EU Regulation or its UK implementation displaced or removed the Secretary of State’s or CPS’s ability to bring criminal prosecutions. The judicial review was dismissed.

Commentary

This case provides important clarification on the interplay between the Official Controls Regulations and domestic prosecutorial authority. While the FSA is the 'competent authority' for enforcing compliance in slaughterhouses, this status does not displace other statutory prosecutorial powers. The decision draws a sharp distinction between regulatory enforcement powers (which may include issuing notices, suspending operations, or other administrative actions) and criminal prosecution powers, which may still be exercised by the CPS via a valid assignment from the Secretary of State.

Getting advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com