Norfolk County Council Trading Standards v Norfolk Free Range Ltd

Norfolk Free Range Ltd (“NFR”) has been fined £15,000 following a conviction for contravening the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (“WATOK”). This case serves as an important reminder that companies who derive profit from the killing of sentient animals bear a high level of responsibility to ensure compliance with the regulations.

Facts

NFR operates a number of commercial pig farming premises in Norfolk. In June 2022, animal activist and advocate Joey Carbstrong conducted an investigation on NFR’s Harford Farm site. The farm was in the midst of a salmonella outbreak at the time which had resulted in high levels of morbidity and mortality. On 3^rd June 2022 hidden camera footage captured a farm worker approaching an injured pig and beating them to death with a hurdle pin, striking them a total of 16 times. Expert evidence confirmed that the pig was alive and conscious for at least the first eight blows and would have experienced intense pain, fear and suffering. 

When the footage came to light in 2023 the employee involved was dismissed by NFR and was subsequently interviewed under caution by Norfolk County Council Trading Standards. In interview, he admitted the killing and stated that he had been left with no other option by his employer due to a lack of training, support and equipment. He subsequently accepted a caution for an offence of causing unnecessary suffering contrary to section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. 

NFR was charged with a number of animal welfare offences but subsequently pleaded guilty to a single WATOK offence shortly before the trial was listed in June 2026, thereby accepting strict liability for the actions of its employee. As a result of this guilty plea, the other offences charged were not proceeded with.

At the time of the offence, NFR was responsible for approximately 60,000 pigs across its multiple finishing farms. In 2025 it made a pre-tax profit of over £800,000. 

In passing sentence the Judge found that the offence involved a high level of harm. He noted that this was a serious welfare failing and that the pig experienced severe pain and substantial avoidable suffering. In relation to culpability, the Judge accepted the prosecution’s submission that strict liability under the WATOK regime recognises the importance that Parliament attaches to the humane treatment of animals; accordingly, whilst NFR’s culpability was necessarily low as a result of its strict liability, it was not minimal. 

Law

Any person who kills animals in a commercial context is required to have a WATOK licence and to be assessed as competent, subject to an exception in the case of an emergency. However, what constitutes an emergency is undefined and is the subject of conflicting guidance. Evidence in this case suggested that approximately 6.9% of pigs on a typical pig-rearing farm either die or are killed on-farm, meaning that many millions of pigs in the UK may be killed in an undefined emergency by someone who is not certified as competent and does not hold a WATOK licence. 

Irrespective, any killing of an animal (whether in an emergency or otherwise) must be conducted in accordance with article 3 of the Regulation (EC) 1099/2009. This requires that “animals shall be spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations” and goes on to specify the necessary steps that a business operator must take in this regard. Regulation 30(1)(g) of WATOK makes it an offence to “contravene, or to cause or permit a person to contravene” article 3.  

Importantly, the courts have confirmed that WATOK offences are strict liability (R (Jarrett Ltd) v Bristol Magistrates’ Court [2025] EWHC 1674 (Admin)), meaning that an employer is strictly liable for the actions of its employee. Article 3(1) was specifically considered by the Supreme Court in R v Highbury Poultry [2020] UKSC 39, a case concerning the liability of a poultry slaughterhouse operator for the actions of its employees in failing to properly sever the chickens’ carotid arteries or to verify death following simple stunning and before the animals entered the scalding tank. The Supreme Court confirmed that article 3(1) imposes strict liability without the need to prove any negligence on the part of the employer.

It follows that, in cases involving alleged breaches of s.30(1)(g) WATOK and article 3 of the Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 by a company as a result of the actions of an employee, there is no need to prove mens rea or that the employer specifically caused or permitted the employee to act as they did. Rather, the employer contravenes article 3(1) because the act of the employee is the act of the employer. 

The rationale behind strict liability offences was explained by Lord Bingham CJ in Milford Haven Port Authority [2000] 2 Cr App R 323:

“Parliament creates an offence of strict liability because it regards the doing or not doing of a particular thing as itself so undesirable as to merit the imposition of a criminal punishment on anyone who does or does not do that thing irrespective of that party’s knowledge, state of mind, belief or intention. This involves a departure from the prevailing canons of the criminal law because of the importance which is attached to achieving the result which Parliament seeks to achieve.” (emphasis added)

Strict liability offences may therefore “prompt the employer to organise the work of his employees in such a way as to ensure compliance” (Public Prosecutor v Hansen & Son I/S (Case C-326/88) [1992] ICR 277) and may act “as an incentive to improve standards” (Highbury Poultry [2020] UKSC 39, para 35).

Sentencing

There are no sentencing guidelines for WATOK offences, however a breach of article 3(1) is the only offence which is imprisonable in the case of an individual and it is therefore the most serious. In the case of a corporate offender therefore, the maximum sentence is an unlimited fine. The ‘General guideline: overarching principles’ notes that: 

“When sentencing organisations the fine must be sufficiently substantial to have a real economic impact which will bring home to both management and shareholders the need to comply with the law. The court should ensure that the effect of the fine (particularly if it will result in closure of the business) is proportionate to the gravity of the offence.”

In passing sentence on NFR, the Judge granted full credit for the guilty plea and found there to be substantial mitigation, including NFR’s generally positive welfare record and RSPCA Assured and Red Tractor certifications, but also recognised the severe suffering involved and the need for deterrence.  

In addition to a fine of £15,000, NFR was ordered to pay a contribution to the prosecution costs of £7,500 and a statutory victim surcharge. 

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.