Ford v Wiley

Ford v Wiley (1889) 23 QBD 203 (QB Divisional Court)

Facts

The defendant farmer arranged for 32 cattle to have their horns sawn off close to the head. The evidence showed the animals experienced bleeding, infection, and prolonged suffering, with some still discharging pus weeks later. Veterinary experts testified that the operation caused excruciating and prolonged pain and provided no benefit to the animals. 

The farmer’s reasons were commercial and practical, for example dehorned cattle fetched higher prices, more animals could be kept or transported together, and the cattle could not gore one another.

The Magistrates Court dismissed cruelty charges under the Protection of Animals Act 1849. The prosecutor appealed by way of case stated, arguing that dehorning was not legally justifiable. 

Law

The relevant provision was under the Protection of Animals Act 1849, where section 2 made it an offence to cruelly abuse, ill-treat, or torture an animal or cause an animal to be cruelly abused or tortured. 

Judgment

The Divisional Court found that the Magistrates Court should have convicted. 

It found that the dehorning as performed caused extreme and prolonged suffering and that the purposes of higher price, easier management, packing efficiency were commercial advantages only, not necessity. The Court also found less painful alternatives existed, for example removing horn tips.

It was held that the suffering was unnecessary and disproportionate, amounting to cruelty under the statute.

The case was sent back to the Magistrates Court for conviction. 

Commentary

Ford v Wiley is a leading case establishing the modern proportionality approach in animal welfare law. Cruelty arises where suffering is unnecessary, and whether suffering is necessary depends on whether it is proportionate to a legitimate aim.

The Court made clear that “necessity” does not include mere convenience, increased profit, or efficiency. Economic benefit alone cannot justify serious animal suffering. Liability depends on whether the conduct was objectively justified, not whether the farmer believed it to be necessary.

Although the case itself did not expressly address the use of anaesthesia, when interpreted through a modern welfare law framework the decision reflects the principle that, where a painful procedure is carried out, reasonable steps should be taken to minimise suffering.

Today, dehorning is legally permitted but is tightly regulated and requires the use of anaesthetic under the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007. In practice, earlier and less invasive methods, such as debudding, are more commonly used. Where dehorning is performed, the stated justification is typically animal welfare for example, preventing injury to other cattle, or preventing injury to handlers.

In light of the Ford v Wiley principle, increasing the level of suffering, whether than be through using a more painful method or failing to administer pain mitigation, for reasons of cost, convenience, or efficiency would be difficult to justify, as commercial advantage alone is not a legitimate basis for causing avoidable suffering.

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.