R V D’Netto, Houghton, Vyas,Patterson, Sasportas (Animal Rising)

(c) Animal Rising

R V D’Netto, Houghton, Vyas,Patterson, Sasportas (Animal Rising) [2026]

Background

The case arose from a coordinated action by animal rights activists connected to the group Animal Rebellion, now known as Animal Rising. In December 2022, campaigners entered MBR Acres, a Cambridgeshire breeding facility that supplies beagle dogs for scientific and pharmaceutical testing. The activists removed several puppies from the premises, arguing that the animals faced suffering and exploitation within the testing industry.

The prosecution treated the incident as a criminal burglary. Across multiple trials, different groups of defendants were prosecuted for their involvement in the operation. This summary concerns a case concluded at Peterborough Crown Court in March 2026, where five defendants faced allegations connected to the rescue of 18 beagle puppies.

Facts

The evidence showed that the rescue operation had been carefully organised. Participants allegedly used hired vehicles, temporary accommodation, burner phones, and separate operational teams. Some individuals cut through fencing or climbed into the facility, while others acted as drivers or coordinated the removal of the dogs. Twenty puppies were initially taken, although two were later recovered and returned to the facility.

MBR Acres held licences connected to the breeding and use of dogs for laboratory purposes. Evidence before the court indicated that dogs bred at the site could be used in scientific and toxicology testing, including procedures involving blood sampling and euthanasia under anaesthetic conditions authorised by licence.

The defendants openly accepted their participation in the rescue operation. However, they argued that they acted from moral conviction and believed the animals were being kept in unacceptable and illegal conditions. Several defendants stated that they considered the rescue to be justified on ethical grounds rather than motivated by personal gain. In contrast with prior open rescue cases, the defendants in this case focused on: (a) their perceived civic duty to ensure vulnerable beings were protected (rather than their ideological opposition to animal testing); and (b) the individual experience of the dogs.

Law

The prosecution relied on the offence of burglary. To establish liability, the Crown needed to prove that the defendants entered the premises as trespassers with the intention of stealing property belonging to another. In this case, the “property” concerned was the beagle puppies removed from the facility.

A central legal issue was dishonesty. The trial judge directed the jury to consider what each defendant genuinely believed at the time of the incident and then determine whether ordinary decent people would regard the conduct as dishonest in light of those beliefs. The prosecution accepted that the defendants sincerely held their views about animal welfare, but argued that sincere motives did not excuse unlawful conduct. Defence advocates argued that dishonesty ultimately remained a factual issue for a jury to decide according to contemporary standards.

Judgment

After a seven-day trial and more than nine hours of jury deliberations, all five defendants were acquitted. The jury returned not guilty verdicts on the burglary allegations.

The acquittals were particularly notable because two trials involving other defendants connected to the same rescue operation had produced convictions while one other had ended in acquittal. As a result, different juries reached inconsistent conclusions despite the cases arising from substantially similar facts.

The acquittal does not create a wider legal exemption for activists who remove animals from commercial or research facilities. Nevertheless, it demonstrated that a jury could conclude that activists acting from genuinely held moral beliefs were not dishonest for the purposes of burglary offences.

Commentary

The decision is significant because it highlights the flexibility of the legal concept of dishonesty. Rather than focusing solely on whether the defendants technically removed property, the jury was invited to assess the moral context surrounding the conduct. The defence argued that the defendants’ conduct should be understood in the context of protest and animal welfare concerns, rather than ordinary criminal theft.

From an animal rights perspective, the case has been regarded as an important example of “open rescue” activism reaching the British courts. Although the acquittals do not change the substantive law on burglary, they may encourage future defendants to argue that actions motivated by animal welfare concerns are incompatible with dishonesty in the criminal sense.

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.