FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B) https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/384 Background This case from the Family Court in Manchester concerned financial remedies following the breakdown of a marriage, but also involved the dispute over the parties’ golden retriever puppy. While the financial matters were largely agreed, the question of who should keep the dog became central. The husband argued that he was his disability support dog, whereas the wife claimed to be the primary carer and sought to retain him. The judgment therefore provides a useful example of how the courts may deal with companion animals in family proceedings. Facts The parties married in 2010 and separated in 2022, with two children remaining in the wife’s care. The family home was jointly owned, but both accepted that it would be sold. In February 2024, the husband applied for declared ownership of the dog and for a shared care arrangement. He maintained that he had purchased the golden retriever, that he trained him and that she was his registered support animal, essential for managing anxiety and depression. However, registration was said to take place after the parties separated. The wife sought the retention of the family dog. The wife claimed the dog was purchased jointly, that she was the registered keeper, had paid the veterinary and insurance costs, and provided her daily care. Matters came to a head in December 2024 when the husband forcibly removed the dog from the maternal grandmother; the dog was later returned to the wife with an injured paw which was claimed to have happened from being dragged into the husband's car from the family home where the dog had run back to. Legal Issues In English law companion animals are largely treated as chattels, not as beings with independent rights. However, the court referred to RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam) , which highlighted the importance of considering who has primary responsibility for their care. Judgment The court awarded ownership of the golden retriever to the wife. Although acknowledging that he was jointly purchased, the judge held that the wife had been her main carer and had consistently met his needs. The husband’s claim that he was a support animal was rejected, and his conduct in forcibly removing him was considered inappropriate. The judge also noted that the children’s lives would be better served by the dog remaining with the wife. The relevant paragraphs in the judgment state: Paragraph 70: The final issue in this case is the ownership of the dog. This is a thorny issue between the parties. Both parties jointly purchased the dog. I found the wife’s evidence compelling when she said “I would not force a dog to come away when he didn’t know me “ when talking about the alleged abduction of the dog. She has lived with dogs all her life and they are an integral part of her’s and importantly the children’s lives. The husband has no inclination as to the upset that will have been caused to the grandmother, the wife and the children when he forcibly removed the dog from the grandmother outside of the family home. I do not accept that he did not take the dog forcibly as he suggested. Of course the grandmother would have been upset as she was responsible for the care of the dog, similarly the children as they will see it as their dog. Whilst I may understand the husband’s actions as he sees the dog as his right “I have more right than the grandmother” he fails to understand the implications of his action which impact the family and the dog . I also do not accept his evidence that the wife did not care for the dog after they separated, her evidence was far more in tune with someone who has the welfare of the dog at heart. Paragraph71: The legal authority to which I have referred provides assistance as to who has principally looked after the dog. Not who has purchased the dog, that fact in my view is not as important as who the dog sees as her carer. This is not who had previously looked after the dog, but who does now. It is an agreed fact that the parties separated and the dog has been cared for solely by the wife since that separation some 18 months previously. I accept what the wife says 18 months is a long time in a dog’s life. It was clear when the dog ran back to the family home after he had been taken by the husband that the dog considered that to be a safe place and where he belonged. The wife’s evidence as I have set out was compelling but more importantly in my view showed someone who understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog’s interests first. The dog’s home is with the wife, and she should stay there. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter. The husband has managed without a dog for 18 months and it does not therefore seem necessary for his support, even if that were the case which I do not accept was the position at the time the parties separated. Commentary This judgment illustrates the tension between the strict legal classification of animals as property and the more welfare and animal oriented approach that is required in practice. Although the court considered the property status, it plainly took into account who actually fed, insured, and looked after the dog, as well as the continuity the dog provided for the children. It also took into account the dog's wishes. The decision also demonstrates how credibility is central in disputes of this nature. The husband’s late and questionable attempt to classify the dog as a support dog undermined his position, while his behaviour in seizing him from the maternal grandmother highlighted risks to his wellbeing. The case reinforces the idea that courts are willing to move beyond strict property principles in favour of the care and welfare of an animal. 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

Malaysia has a human population of over 33.5 million with a land area of 330,345 km² and a total coastline of 4,675 km. Situated in Southeast Asia, it is located in the tropics and is one of seventeen megadiverse countries, home to crucial migrating and endemic animals such as the Malayan tiger, Asian elephant, Malayan tapir and around 104,700 orangutans in Sumatra and Borneo. Due to most of the country having rainforest coverage like the Borneo and Sumatra islands, there is a vast biodiversity of plant and animal species. Since 2014, Malaysia has been ranked as a C-grade (out of possible grades A,B,C,D,E,F,G) for animal welfare laws in the Animal Protection Index . Along with India, this is highest among countries within the Asian continent. However, this week guest writer Zach Ng explores how an increase in effective authority and animal laws and policies would ultimately further improve the situation where instances of animal crimes are frequently reported, hand in hand with vital conservation efforts. Legislation relating to animals Animal Welfare Act 2015 The Animal Welfare Act 2015 (which amended Malaysia's Animals Act of 1953) exists as the main piece of legislation concerning captive and domesticated animals , including companion and farm animals. The AWA provides regulations to: prevent unnecessary cruelty and slaughter, control transportation and selling, control and prevent disease, and general issues relating to animal welfare and conservation. There are also total bans on some inherently cruel activities such as animal fighting and baiting. Additionally, it details the ‘Ancillary Power of the Court’ and ‘Powers Relating to Enforcement’ to ensure the suitable punishment for cases where individuals are found acting brutally toward animals. Some benefits of the AWA can be seen as this legislation acknowledged at federal level symbolises the progressive movement towards animal welfare and emphasises responsible ownership and care. Animal cruelty penalties within the Malaysian Penal Code have increased through section 38 of the Animals (Amendment) Act 2013, where there is now a maximum fine of MYR50,000 (around £9,000) and one year’s imprisonment. Section 24 also acts inclusively of the Five Freedoms proposed by the Universal Declaration of Animal Welfare: (i) freedom from hunger and thirst, (ii) freedom from fear and distress, (iii) freedom from discomfort, (iv) freedom from pain, injury, or disease, and (v) freedom to express normal behaviour. Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 The Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 (enacted to repeal and replace the Protection of Wildlife Act 1972) regulates the country’s wild animals , generally outside human control. The WCA defines ‘wildlife’ as: ‘any species of wild animal or wild bird, whether totally protected or protected, vertebrate or invertebrate, live or dead, mature or immature and whether or not may be tamed or bred in captivity’. Furthermore, through the supplementary Wildlife Conservation (Operation of Zoo) Regulations 2012, the government has enacted various regulations including special permit requirements to import and export, captive breed wildlife and keep animals in zoos, circuses and exhibitions. A list of legally protected species is designated. Heavily endangered species such as the Malayan tiger and other species of large cats are listed as ‘totally protected’ under the law to deter their exploitation and promote wildlife conservation. The WCA establishes a system through which special permits and licences are issued by the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (PERHILITAN) which oversees the conservation and management of wildlife in Malaysia. Its stringent criteria ensures that activities related to protected wildlife species such as captive breeding, trade and research are conducted in a regulated and sustainable manner. Consequently, the risk of illegal activities is reduced and a mechanism for monitoring and accountability is provided. Under the WCA, wildlife offences and penalties such as cruelty and keeping wild animals were established; ranging from fines to imprisonment and more severe penalties for repeat offenders or those involved in organised wildlife crimes. These provisions act as a deterrent to send a clear warning that illegal wildlife-related activities will not be tolerated. Complementing these, stronger enforcement powers were established such as granting wildlife officers greater powers to fulfil their duties of investigation, arrest, and seizure of wildlife and related items. Shortfalls with the current law There are still many shortfalls within Malaysia’s realm of animal law. Significant challenges include a lack of effective legislation, a lack of clarity in legislation and inadequate enforcement capacity. Even the symbolic national animal, the Malaysian tiger, which is adorned on the country's coat of arms, has failed to be protected where there used to be thousands and now reduced to less than a few hundred in the wild. There is a lack of enforcement in place by the government to protect animals. Whilst Malaysia is a member of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), there is still a lot of underground animal trade internally and with countries such as Vietnam and Thailand. Under the WCA, wild animals are only allowed to be bred and kept by licence holders, however there is significant illegal wildlife trade, including the keeping of wild animals as companions. Poaching and habitat loss have also led to a huge loss in population, showing the lack of adequate enforcement. Although hunting with a licence is legal, it is not regulated. There is also not a full incorporation of laws in the country: the states of Sabah and Sarawak have not fully ratified the AWA into their state laws. The future Collaboration The future of Malaysia’s welfare of animals depends on the actions of its government and society, as well as its international cooperation to address animal cruelty and streamlining procedure, scientific research and even funding. The WCA encourages collaboration among relevant agencies, including law enforcement, customs, and international entities. Internationally, cooperation and intelligence sharing with the likes of INTERPOL and United Nations assists to combat transnational wildlife trafficking networks and transnational wildlife crimes such as through the signing of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Internally, there are also several non-governmental organisations dealing with animals such as the Malaysian Nature Society, Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) Selangor and Malaysian Animal Welfare Association that seeks ‘to promote a caring Malaysian society through creating awareness and a balanced approach to animal welfare’. Education Efforts into education are vital to the success of the future of Malaysia’s animals. This can be conducted by various organisations and government agencies to conduct educational programs and awareness campaigns for public outreach to advocate deeper understanding of animal rights, conservation, and the importance of biodiversity. Ecotourism in Malaysia is also important for the country to gain finance into protecting animals. An example can be seen through MYCAT (an alliance of NGO’s working towards recovery of wild tiger populations) whereby ‘CAT Walks’ are arranged. These are guided surveillance patrols which allows members of the general public to be directly involved in protecting tigers and their habitats. Legislation Although the AWA and WCA serve as critical legal instruments and are good starting blocks into animal law, continuous efforts to strengthen laws and policies, as well as enforcement are essential for their successful implementation. The federal Government of Malaysia could also align all animal welfare under a single ministry to ensure sufficient animal welfare protections for all species. 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 .

Nestled at the heart of the Americas, guest writer Katya Sargeant will explore the animal laws in Ecuador. With its archipelagic province of Galápagos, it is renowned for its astounding biodiversity – boasting more than 4200 species of native fauna. The conservation of Ecuadorian biodiversity is a fundamental motivation of the jurisdiction’s approach to the legal consideration of animals. Although nature is currently recognised as a subject of law by the Ecuadorian Constitution, animal welfare provisions – regulated by the Agencia de Regulación y Control Fito y Zoosanitario (Phytosanitary and Zoosanitary Regulation and Control Agency) – remain piecemeal. General animal laws According to the Código Orgánico del Ambiente (Organic Code of the Environment), owners of companion animals, animals used in 'work and trade', animals raised for human consumption, animals used in entertainment, and animals used for experimentation are obliged to satisfy their animals’ basic needs according to Art. 145, namely the: provision of food, provision of water, and shelter, according to the requirements of each species; freedom from aggression and mistreatment; provision of veterinary care; and respect of animals’ species-specific natural behaviour. Under Art. 146 of the same Code, it is forbidden to: cause death to animals – except those intended for consumption and those that represent a risk of transmission of disease; practise bestiality or zoophilia; mistreat, harm, or abandon animals; keep animals crowded or permanently isolated; supply harmful [substances] whose ingestion can cause pain, illness, or death; engaging or attempting to engage an animal in fights, except where Art. 148 permits this; and, perform other activities which are prohibited by Autonomous Municipal Governments [...]. Companion and service animals In addition to the provisions under the Código Orgánico del Ambiente, the 'unnecessary' killing or injuring of a domestic animal may be punished with a prison sentence and a fine, according to Art. 414 of the Ecuadorian Código Penal (Criminal Code). Under Art. 604, those who 'harm or torture an animal, even when it is to induce service; those who kill an animal without need; those who govern animals with sharp instruments capable of causing injury; those who use injured or mistreated animals' may be fined. Decentralised Autonomous Municipal and Metropolitan Governments (Gobiernos Autónomos Descentralizados Municipales o Metropolitanos) are obliged, under Art. 149 of the Código Orgánico del Ambiente, to implement adoption programmes for rescued animals and vaccination campaigns, and, under Art. 150, to implement temporary shelters for abandoned and mistreated animals, which may sterilise animals and provide veterinary care. Captive animals used for 'entertainment' Art. 146 of the Código Orgánico del Ambiente prohibits the incitement and facilitation of fighting between dogs and other 'urban animals', which is punishable with a prison sentence under Art. 250.2 of the Ecuadorian Código Penal. Bullfighting and cockfighting remain lawful, however, provided, since 2011, that the animals are not killed in the square/arena (see Decreto Supremo (No. 2830 )) – despite the inevitability of death caused by the inflicted wounds. Art. 146 also stipulates a nationwide ban on the use of native animals in circuses with restrictions on the use of exotic animals, and a ban on the importation of both native and exotic wild animals with circuses. Farmed terrestrial animals The primary provision concerning farmed animals is the 2017 Ley Orgánica de Sanidad Agropecuaria (Organic Law of Agricultural Health). Art. 48 requires farmers to '[consider] the needs that must be satisfied for all animals to prevent suffering: hunger, thirst, physical discomfort, pain, wounds, illnesses, fear, anguish, being unable to display natural behaviour.' These welfare conditions must be 'considered' for 'handling and transporting animals by land, sea, and air.' Species-specific regulations , however, are limited in scope and remain anthropic: regulations focus on the control and prevention of species-specific diseases, not the active promotion of animals’ well-being. Furthermore, slaughter regulations according to the Ley de Mataderos (No. 5102) (Slaughter Law) are minimal: transportation welfare regulations exist only regarding the state of transportation vehicles; no maximum duration of live transport is stipulated; and non-stunned slaughter remains lawful. Farmed aquatic animals In recent years, Ecuador has made progress in sustainable fishing by reducing overfishing and the overexploitation of species following EU complaints. However, the term 'bienestar' (welfare) is absent from the primary pieces of welfare concerning the development of fisheries (such as the Ley Pesca y Desarrollo Pesquero (2016) (Law of Fisheries and Development of Fisheries)): the health ('sanidad') of farmed fish appears to be relevant only insofar as contamination of the food chain and wider environment are concerned. Wild animals In 2008, Ecuador became the first state in the world to recognise nature as a legal entity: the Constitucion (Constitution) enshrines the 'Rights of Nature' which establish an ecosystem’s legal right to exist and regenerate. When considering the 2022 habeas corpus case of Estrellita the woolly monkey , the Ecuadorian Constitutional Court ruled that individual animals could be considered as rights holders under the Rights of Nature, focusing on their individuality and intrinsic value. This is relevant since protecting only species, and neglecting individual animals, endangers a significant number of animals and engenders extinction (paragraph 126). The Court also outlined the rights that apply to some or all animals, including the: Right to exist (paragraph 111) Right not to be hunted, fished, captured, collected, extracted, kept, detained, trafficked, traded, or exchanged (paragraph 112) Right to the free development of their animal behaviour (paragraph 112) Right to freedom and good living (paragraph 119) Right to demand their rights from the competent authorities (paragraph 121) Right to life (paragraph 155): animals must be ensured life in an environment free from disproportionate cruelty, fear, and distress (paragraph 137) The judgment, however, made clear that 'legitimate' human uses of animals will not be affected by these rights. For instance, paragraphs 102-103 established that 'insofar as human beings are predators, and being omnivorous by nature, their right to feed on other animals cannot be forbidden.' Similarly, according to paragraph 109, 'the domestication of animals has served to enable humans to [...] provide transportation, help in work, for clothing and footwear; and even [provide] recreation and leisure.' The Galápagos As a Natural Heritage of Humanity site and listed Biosphere Reserve, it is the duty of the Ecuadorian State to the world to preserve the Galápagos Islands. The 1998 Ley Orgánica de Régimen Especial de la Provincia de Galápagos (Organic Law of the Special Regime of the Province of Galápagos) is the primary piece of legislation that seeks to maintain the integrity of terrestrial and marine areas, whilst facilitating responsible and sustainable human development on the islands. The law deals with the control of introduced species, regulation of transport of introduced organisations, and the establishment of a quarantine inspection system. What’s next for animals? Over the past 20 years, significant legislative progress has been made for Ecuadorian animals, and the Estrellita ruling has opened a door to a wealth of possibilities in court. There remain, however, clear areas for improvement, including: a single piece of animal welfare legislation (Ley Organica de Bienestar Animal – LOBA) to raise awareness of the defence and obligations of humans to animals; the reforming of Art. 585 of the Ecuadorian Código Civil (Civil Code) which currently considers animals as 'self-moving objects' to recognise animals as autonomous and sentient beings with intrinsic value; and, regulations on farmed terrestrial and marine animals that focus on well-being as opposed to 'health'. 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 .

2023 Case No: CO/3748/2021 Advocates for Animals acted for Cruelty Free International (CFI) in a judicial review against the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Home Office) concerning her abandonment of a policy which prevented cosmetic products and their ingredients from being tested on animals. The case also concerned the interplay between EU Regulations retained by the UK post-Brexit (albeit with some minor amendments) concerning the safety of cosmetics and their ingredients, on the one hand, and the safety of chemicals more generally (including ingredients used in cosmetics), on the other. Judgment was handed down in May 2023. The law Part of the Home Office’s function is to regulate and develop policies around animal experimentation in Great Britain, carried out by its Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU). The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 permits experiments (‘procedures’) on living vertebrate and some invertebrate animals in some circumstances. A researcher requires a project licence. Before granting a licence, the Secretary of State (the Home Secretary) must be satisfied, amongst other things, that the likely benefits outweigh the expected harm to the animals (the harm: benefit test). From the late 1990s the Home Office had a long-standing policy not to grant licences to assess the safety of ingredients used exclusively or predominantly for cosmetics. It used the harm:benefit test as the basis for the policy – the harm to the animals was not justified by the triviality of the benefit. In 2003, the EU introduced a similar legislative testing ban, later confirmed in the Cosmetics Regulation (No 1223/2009). This also prohibited the sale in the EU of cosmetics tested on animals anywhere in the world, essentially after March 2013. In 2006, the EU passed REACH (No 1907/2006), requiring companies to hold, and if necessary, generate, data for most chemicals (including those used in cosmetics). REACH necessitates a great deal of animal testing. There was therefore potential conflict between the two pieces of legislation: the Cosmetics Regulation banned animal testing for cosmetics, whereas REACH seemed to require it. The conflict appeared to be resolved by REACH saying that its testing requirements were ‘without prejudice’ to the Cosmetics Regulations bans – in other words, those bans took precedence. The facts Following statements by the European Commission and the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) (which regulates REACH), in 2015 the Home Office issued a newsletter (for licence holders) confirming that the UK’s policy remained in place and constituted an absolute ban 'even where EU legislation would appear to require to permit such testing'. The newsletter also confirmed that no such licence had been granted in the UK since 1998. In 2020 ECHA’s Board of Appeal handed down decisions in two appeals brought by Symrise, a German chemical company, where it concluded that the Cosmetics Regulation did not prevent animal testing if the testing was pursuant to the information requirements in REACH. The effect was to make the Cosmetics Regulation bans of virtually no effect. Symrise has challenged those decisions at the General Court (part of the Court of Justice of the European Union) and Cruelty Free Europe, also represented by Advocates for Animals, has been given permission to intervene. Judgment is awaited. Following the Symrise decisions, CFI asked the Home Office for its present position. The department said it was following the Symrise decisions and was no longer following the 1998 policy. The claimant therefore brought judicial review proceedings challenging the Home Office’s interpretation of REACH and the lawfulness of the Home Office’s conduct in abandoning its earlier policy. In the course of disclosure, it became apparent that the department had in fact secretly abandoned its ban back in 2019. CFI asserted: that the policy had been unlawfully changed from 2019 onwards, without communication or consultation and; licences had been automatically granted where the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and other UK regulators required them on scientific grounds, rather than a harm/benefit analysis being carried out on a case-by-case basis the Home Office had misconstrued the relationship between the UK versions of REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation Held Mr Justice Linden held that the Home Office could have maintained its policy. It did not have to abandon it, and, as such, it was entirely feasible for the Home Office to reinstate the policy should it wish to do so. He recorded that the Home Office conceded during the case that it could not simply do the bidding of other UK regulators – it had to apply the harm: benefit test in each case. The court also criticised the Home Office for its lack of transparency regarding the change in policy and noted it was 'regrettable' that the Home Office did not announce such a change and essentially make it more widely known. At paragraph 201 the judge noted: '…officials were aware of the expectations of the public but chose not to publicise the policy because the change would be politically unpopular'. However, the Home Office had not breached its legal duties in this respect: the public did not have a legitimate expectation to be informed about the change in policy, and the claimant and other animal protection organisations did not have a legitimate expectation of being consulted. On the construction issue, the judge held that the bans imposed by the Cosmetics Regulation did not stop animal testing to be carried out for the purposes of satisfying the REACH Regulation. Commentary Animal testing for cosmetic purposes, in particular, has always sparked a great deal of public distaste. For most people it is morally unacceptable to carry out animal testing purely in the name of vanity, and it was this unease that ultimately led the government to introduce the policy ban in the late 1990s. A YouGov poll in 2021 (reflecting numerous others) showed that 85% of people in the UK find it unacceptable to test cosmetic ingredients on animals. Following the judge’s finding that it could legally do so, the Home Office has now reinstated the policy ban insofar as it relates to cosmetics exclusively used in cosmetics (about 20% of all cosmetics ingredients). The judge, unusually, gave CFI permission to appeal on the construction issue. The Court of Appeal is expected to be heard in the autumn. 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 .

On 15 June 2024, the nation was shocked at the police’s treatment of a young animal named Beau Lucy. Footage can be seen of the small cow being deliberately and repeatedly rammed by a police car, with members of the Staines-upon-Thames community audibly distressed during the incident. Causing unnecessary suffering to farmed animals is against the law.  Following the public outcry, the incident resulted in a voluntary referral to the The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IPOC), just 3 days later, the IOPC decided it does not need to investigate and has handed it back to Surrey Police to conduct its own investigation against the individual involved. The decision to refer the matter back to the same body that oversaw the incident and individual was greeted by disappointment and concern by animal charities. On 29 November 2024 it was reported that the police had cleared the individual of wrongdoing and that 'the tactics adopted were both lawful and necessary to prevent harm to the public and property'. The assertion that driving a car into a young animal was necessary is strongly disputed by animal charity The Humane Society International, which argues alternative methods were available and as such the suffering caused to the calf was wholly unnecessary, which is illegal.  Key eyewitnesses from the night, one of which was the only person with the calf before the police arrived, have said that the cow was calm before the police arrived and that the police did not try any other means of containment before ramming her. These key witnesses have also confirmed that they were not approached by the police. Data from The Animal Law Foundation has revealed that just 0.89% of complaints involving the welfare of farmed animals resulted in a prosecution between 2022 and 2023.   Quotes Edie Bowles, Advocates for Animals 'The integrity of the police investigation is called into question when arguably the most important witness, the individual with the calf before the police arrived, has not been approached or interviewed by the police ahead of them dropping their investigation. This case involves the welfare of a sentient animal, potential criminal wrongdoing and huge public interest, yet it did not receive proper consideration. Animal law matters; the alternative is that the passing of these laws by Parliament is performative.' Sam March, Barrister, 9KBW 'I was asked to review a dossier of compelling evidence gathered by HSI in the days following the incident. I have to say that if a charity was able to gather that volume of concerning evidence within a few days, then I’m very surprised that the police - with all their investigative powers - failed to build a viable case in the months that followed. The decision not to speak to the key civilian witness smacks of closing ranks and wilful blindness.' 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 .

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

Making legal protection for animals sustainable, accessible and professional Animal protection should be more than a principle. It should be something that can be upheld, enforced and defended. But in reality, legal action is often out of reach, especially for those seeking justice on behalf of animals. The costs, the uncertainty, and the lack of available support can all become barriers. At Advocates for Animals, we are working to change that.  As a specialist not-for-profit animal protection law firm, we exist to make legal support more accessible while also ensuring it is rigorous, strategic and sustainable. Not-for-profit does not mean free. It means mission-first We are proud to be a not-for-profit law firm. This means everything we do is shaped by our commitment to animals, not profit margins. Any surplus we generate is reinvested into the firm, so we can continue supporting individuals and organisations working to protect animals. Professional legal work requires resources. Preparing a case, giving accurate advice, understanding complex legal systems and responding to urgent issues all take time and skill. Charging for our services allows us to do this properly, without cutting corners or relying on unpaid labour. A wider impact: building a serious and sustainable field When we charge for our services, we are not just covering our costs. We are contributing to the development of a sustainable, professional field of animal protection law. For many years, legal protections for animals have existed largely on paper. Enforcement has been inconsistent, and specialist legal advice was often either inaccessible or offered on a volunteer basis. While volunteer support remains valuable, long-term change requires full-time focus, dedicated expertise and legal infrastructure that is consistent, credible and responsive. By charging modest, consistent fees, we are able to build the depth of expertise needed to respond to urgent requests, support strategic litigation, and advise on everything from judicial reviews to undercover investigations. It allows us to best represent our client’s interests.  It also sends a clear signal: animal law is real law. It deserves the same time, training and investment as any other area of serious legal practice. Keeping our services accessible Many of our clients are individuals, grassroots organisations or small charities. They come to us because they believe something unlawful or unjust is happening to animals, and they want to take action through legal channels. We have built our firm specifically to support this kind of client. Not corporate clients with commercial interests, but those acting in the public interest, often on behalf of animals who have no legal standing of their own.  We recognise that legal fees can be daunting, particularly for individuals and small charities. That is why we keep our rates as low as we reasonably can. Our hourly rate is currently £80 plus VAT, and our day rate is £600 plus VAT. These rates are significantly lower than those charged by most commercial law firms. Why we charge, and why it matters We are a not-for-profit firm, but we still need to charge for our work. Without doing so, we could not offer professional legal services, take on urgent requests or pursue strategic legal challenges that benefit animals. By charging fairly and keeping our rates low, we are able to remain resilient and sustainable for the benefit of our clients and for the animals whose interests they represent. 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 .

Typically, criminal offences are prosecuted by the police or other prosecuting authorities but what happens when the authorities do not pursue a case? This is when there is an opportunity for a private prosecution. 'A private prosecution is a criminal prosecution started by an individual or body, who is not acting on behalf of the police or any other prosecuting authority or body that conducts prosecutions', Fraud Advisory Panel, April 2013. Anyone can make the decision to privately prosecute a crime. The RSPCA has proven how effective private prosecutions are for bringing those that harm animals to justice. In 2019, they secured convictions in 93.7% of their cases. In 2021, the RSPCA announced that it was taking a step back from its role as the most active animal charity prosecutor, giving other animal protection charities and individuals who are passionate about animal protection the opportunity to step into the realm of private prosecutions too. In some cases, private prosecutions have a better chance of success than those led by the authorities. Their success is not limited in the same way by the lack of resources that limit cases brought by the typical authorities: time and money, and consequently more time and expertise can be dedicated to the proceedings. The individual or body leading the prosecution can pick and choose a suitably qualified lawyer with expert knowledge to advocate for them which in of itself increases the case’s chances of success. The criminal burden of proof is extremely high: ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ and it is the prosecution’s job to prove that the burden is met. A lawyer with expert knowledge in the relevant area is going to be in a better position to present the prosecution case and scrutinise evidence raised by the defendant and, in doing so, prove the defendant’s guilt. Nonetheless, bringing a private prosecution is not a decision to be taken lightly. Before committing to start proceedings, it is key to make sure that it is the most appropriate means of redress and that you have what you need to ensure that there is a good likelihood of success: 1. Is there a more appropriate means of redress? Is the crime one that the police or other prosecuting authority have decided not to prosecute or are they not aware of it? If they are not aware of it, consider whether you should report the alleged crime to the appropriate authority and share any evidence you have with them. It may be that the most appropriate means of redress is to consider a private prosecution. Expert legal advice should be sought to determine this. 2. Do you have the right motive? Have you considered whether pursuing a private prosecution is in the public interest? Are you pursuing the case to legitimately secure justice? Making sure you are acting properly in bringing a prosecution will protect you from cost orders and help the strength of your case. 3. Do you have the right support? Before you start proceedings, you need to make sure you: (a) understand the private prosecution process; (b) have a strong case; and (c) are the most appropriate person/body to prosecute the offence. The best way to do this is to contact independent counsel, typically a solicitors firm like Advocates for Animals, who can explain this to you, carry out an independent and unbiased review of the evidence, give you their opinion on the strength of your case and advise on next steps. 4. Do you have credible evidence? This is the most important thing to consider. The strength of a private prosecution will largely depend on the quality of the evidence gathered. Evidence includes documents, communications, witnesses, pictures, videos, and recordings. Have you kept detailed and complete records of the provenance of all of the evidence? Is the evidence admissible? Is the evidence credible and reliable? Have you identified any gaps in evidence? Can you fill those gaps in evidence? Independent counsel will be able to scrutinise the credibility of your evidence, advise on further evidence that you may need to gather and how to do that. It is often necessary to get expert evidence to support your case. Independent counsel will be able to advise on what type of expert evidence will be most valuable to your case and help you identify appropriate experts. 5. Do you have the funds to cover the case from start to finish? The costs involved in pursuing private prosecutions are not insignificant. You must be in a position to fund both the investigation and trial process. If your case is an either way offence, which some animal welfare offences now are, you will be able to recover reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the case from either the defendant or central funds whether the defendant is found guilty or not guilty. However, recovering costs is not a guarantee and so you need to make sure that you are in a position to fully fund the case and are comfortable with the risk that you might not recover your costs. Whilst the defendant can seek cost recovery from you, this is only if you have acted improperly resulting in the defendant incurring costs. Having independent legal counsel will mitigate any risk of allegations that you have acted improperly. If funding is an issue, independent counsel can help identify other potential sources of funding for your case. If you are interested specifically in understanding how the right to privately prosecute may help you, please let us know. 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 .

Requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ('FOIA') are a key legal tool which all those who care about animals and protecting them can make use of to further their objectives and inspire change. For example, they can be used to get hold of key statistics to support campaigns or legal action, and they can help identify where public authorities are failing to adequately protect animals. Section 1 FOIA grants a general right of access to information held by public authorities. Public authorities are obliged to comply with these requests subject to certain specific exemptions including but not limited to personal data, information provided in confidence and the protection of commercial interests which they can rely on to withhold disclosure or make redactions to disclosed information. Just because there is a general right of access to information held by public authorities does not mean public authorities will be fully transparent in response to requests for information they receive. If public authorities do attempt to rely on exemptions to withhold disclosure or make redactions, such reliance can be challenged - they do not always get it right! The way that you present your request for information and your knowledge of your rights under the FOIA is key to getting the most out of the process. Did you know that: 1. Most authorities have informational pages on their websites as to how an individual can submit a FOIA request to them? Check to see if the public body you are targeting with your information request provides specific guidance on how to submit a request to them. If they do provide such guidance, you should make sure you follow it. www.gov.uk advises that requestors include their name and contact postal and/or email address too. 2. Being clear and leaving little room for ambiguity in your request will increase your chances of success? Be clear about the information that you want and in what form you want it. For example, once you have set out the subject matter of information you are requesting, use date ranges, locations and other applicable filter categories to narrow the data set to what you really need. The more specific the request, the easier it is for the authority to identify what you want and the more likely the authority is to provide a helpful response. If you leave room for ambiguity, they are more likely to incorrectly identify the information you want or refuse to reply. If the public body estimates that it will be too costly and take up too much time to respond to a request (which is more likely to be the case with vague requests for information), they may refuse to provide any information. 3. It is important to have a genuine motive? Authorities can refuse to comply with a request for information that they determine to be vexatious. 4. Your request must be replied to within 20 working days? Public authorities are required to reply to requests for information promptly and in any event no later than 20 working days from the date they receive your request. If you do not receive a request within the time period, you can complain to the authority and eventually apply to the Information Commissioner’s Office if you do not get any/an appropriate response. Make sure you diarise the date the authority’s response is due so that you can take action promptly. 5. If you do not get the response you want, you have 40 working days to request an internal review? If you disagree with the response to your request for information - for example, in cases where they have withheld disclosure or made a lot of redactions to key information - you can request an internal review. This essentially asks the authority to re-consider your request for information and allows you the opportunity to argue your case as to why you are entitled to this information, dealing with any reasons for refusal the authority has relied upon in their response. A request for an internal review must be made within 40 working days of the authority’s initial response to you. This is another key date to diarise to make sure that you do not miss your window to escalate matters. Authorities are not obliged to comply with a FOIA request which is 'identical or substantially similar' to a previous FOIA request you have submitted and so it is important to request an internal review within the 40 working-day window because otherwise you may not have another opportunity to get the information you want. If you are not satisfied with a response to a request for information and are not confident in how to proceed and want to make sure that you act as efficiently as possible, you can contact independent counsel. Independent counsel, typically a firm like Advocates for Animals, will deal with these requests for information and challenges to unsatisfactory responses regularly and will be able to advise on next steps and draft persuasive complaints on your behalf, including to the Information Commissioner’s Office or even the Tribunal should you not be provided with the information. They can also be involved from the start and draft the initial request for information for you if necessary, giving you the best chance of getting the information you are after. If you are interested specifically in understanding how the right to submit requests for information may help you, please let us know. 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 .

The starting point in civil claims regarding animals is always that animals are 'property' under the law, and as such they have 'owners'. Animals do not have any rights themselves, but instead the civil courts will consider damage to an 'owned' animal as harm to the 'owner'. We are mindful that this is not the language that many of our clients would choose to use, but we use it here, and in our communications with our clients, to the extent that we must do so in order to explain the legal position. We have previously published an article with our top tips for bringing a criminal prosecution where an animal crime has been committed (you can read that article here ), but sometimes the criminal courts are not the appropriate forum to resolve a dispute relating to an animal. In some cases, no crime has been committed, but nevertheless there has been some wrongdoing. For example, this could be a vet who has provided negligent veterinary treatment, a person or company whose negligence resulted in the death or injury of a companion animal, or an animal being wrongly kept from their legal 'owner'. In relation to the latter example, we will only be able to advise where there is an animal welfare concern, not where it is purely an 'ownership' dispute. We have also advised on matters relating to hunt trespass and vegan rights, among other types of civil dispute. 1. Engage a solicitor at an early stage It is not always possible to predict that a dispute is going to result in legal action, but the earlier you engage a solicitor, the better, even if it is just to seek initial guidance while you navigate the early stages of the dispute. In some cases, it may be that a veterinary report or an autopsy is required in order for a claim to have good prospects of success at trial, and the longer you wait the less conclusive that report can be. You may need advice against making inadvertent admissions that could be used against you at trial. You may also be advised on what evidence to gather and how to store it to give it the best chance of being admissible in court. Finally, many types of legal claim are subject to a limitation period, which is usually six years but it can be more or less than this. After the expiry of the relevant period, it will not usually be possible to bring a claim. 2. Retain all evidence It is difficult to predict what evidence may become useful during the course of the proceedings, and as such we would always suggest retaining everything that is relevant to the dispute. This could be correspondence, social media posts, a contract, phone records, clinical records or physical evidence, among other things. If you commence legal proceedings, you will also have obligations to disclose certain material to the other side, and they will have similar obligations to you. As such, it is important to retain all relevant evidence so that it can be considered for disclosure. 3. Make contemporaneous notes Sometimes there can be a significant amount of time between a dispute arising and it being considered by a court. Contemporaneous notes can act as an aide-mémoire and help give the court confidence in your recollection when questioned in court. It also assists your lawyer in putting the case together if they can understand precisely what happened and when. We would suggest making a note of any significant events, dates, costs incurred as a result of the wrongdoing, and any effect that the wrongdoing has had on you. 4. Start thinking about funding at an early stage As a non-profit law firm, we are able to charge far lower than commercial rates, which makes our services accessible to as many people as possible. However, this won’t be true of every firm and in any event the cost of taking a civil claim all the way to a contested trial can nevertheless be substantial. It may be possible to minimise those costs or explore alternative and less costly options, but it is with regret that it is not always possible to take a matter to trial without funds in place. You may have success with Crowdfunding or third party funding to help with legal costs. 5. Manage your expectations This can often be a difficult thing to do, especially where companion animals have experienced something horrific, yet, regrettably, it does not always follow that a legal claim has good prospects of success. As mentioned above, the starting point is always that animals are considered property under the law, so are more comparable to an inanimate appliance than a human, as far as the law is concerned, this may reduce the prospects of success and any compensation that may be awarded. Whilst many do not view animals this way, these are established legal principles, and any changes to those principles will likely only happen incrementally. How can we help? If you think you have a potential civil claim, we would always suggest speaking to a solicitor so that they can advise you on the strength of your claim. At Advocates for Animals, we have specific expertise in making creative use of existing legal principles in order to help our clients make the best use of the law to help animals. We are intensely aware that the property status does not align with the views of many of our clients, and oftentimes we work with those clients to come up with creative arguments to try and persuade judges to consider animals differently. 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 .

Judicial review is a way to challenge the decisions, actions or inactions of a public body because it has not acted lawfully. It is a court process usually carried out in the Administrative Court, which is a branch of the High Court. In a judicial review, a judge will examine the decision, action or inaction and decide whether the law has been correctly followed by the public body. In particular, they will consider the way in which the decision was made, not the decision itself. This means that if the court finds that the law was not followed, it cannot impose a new decision, but it does have a range of other powers, which are set out below. The parties to a judicial review are the claimant (the person who is challenging the decision) and the defendant (the public body that made the decision). Other parties who may be affected by the outcome may also be allowed to be included as interested parties or those who may be able to assist the court may be able to 'intervene'. When considering bringing a judicial review, there are a few questions you should be asking yourself, with input from your legal advisors. Do you have grounds? In order to bring a judicial review, you must have grounds to do so. The standard grounds for judicial review are: Irrationality – the decision, action or inaction was so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it (note that the threshold for irrationality is extremely high). Illegality – the decision, action or inaction was beyond the power of the authority that made the decision. Procedural impropriety or procedural unfairness – the decision, action or inaction was taken improperly (for example, without a fair hearing, with bias, or without proper notice). These grounds are not exhaustive or mutually exclusive, and a court may permit a judicial review on other grounds such as: Proportionality – the decision, action or inaction is a disproportionate means of achieving an otherwise legitimate aim. Misdirection of law – the government has misdirected its officials as to the application or effect of the law. Incompatibility with human rights law – public bodies are bound by human rights law, and a decision, action or inaction which is incompatible with those obligations could be judicially reviewable. Legitimate expectation – a party has been given an expectation that a body will act in a certain way, either because of express statements or prior conduct and the body fails to act in that way, causing the claimant detriment. Fettering of discretion – a public body applies its powers over-rigidly, or has a policy to exercise discretion more narrowly than the relevant legislation contemplated. Is it the type of thing that can be judicially reviewed? The category of things that can be judicially reviewed is wide. It is any decision, act or failure to act by any public body. Are you dealing with a public body? Judicial review only applies if the decision, action or inaction is that of a public body. There is no single answer to whether a body is a public body. Rather, the courts will consider the legal source of the power or function exercised by the decision-maker and the characteristics of that function. If the legal source of the power is statutory, the court will presume that the body is a public body. If there is no statutory source of power, the functions may nevertheless be public in character, such that the body’s decisions, actions and inactions are judicially reviewable. In relation to animal protection, the decision-maker to be challenged will often be an obvious public body, such as a local authority or a government department. On the other hand, farms, veterinary service providers and land management companies are unlikely to be public bodies. Do you have 'standing'? Not just anyone can bring a judicial review. The court will require you to show that you have 'standing', which will usually involve showing that you are affected in some way (such as being the subject of or affected by the decision, action or inaction). Alternatively you might have standing if you are an organisation with sufficient interest in the issue. Do you have permission? Unlike many other types of legal procedure, you will need to seek the court’s permission to proceed with a judicial review. Prior to seeking permission, you will also need to take certain pre-action steps, including sending a pre-action letter to the public body. When applying for permission, your legal team will help you put together certain documents, including a claim form and a statement of facts and grounds, with supporting evidence. These papers will be served on the public body and the court. A judge will review the papers and most likely grant or refuse permission. Are you within time? A claim for judicial review must be brought 'promptly', and ordinarily within three months of the decision, action or inaction you want to challenge. Some types of judicial review must be brought sooner. What are the possible outcomes? The court can make one of the following orders: Quashing order – overturning the original decision and requiring the public body to remake the decision in a lawful manner. This may result in the public body reaching the same decision. Declaration of the law – clearly stating what the law is. Declaration of incompatibility with human rights law – stating that the decision, action or inaction was incompatible with human rights law. Prohibiting order – preventing a public authority from taking an unlawful decision or action it has not yet taken. Mandatory order – requiring a public authority to do something. Injunction – preventing an unlawful act or requiring a public authority to do something, at an early stage. Payment of damages – providing compensation, particularly where a public authority has violated your rights. Courts will only award these in certain, limited circumstances. Do you have the funds? The usual rule in a judicial review is that the loser pays the winner’s costs. This means that you will need to budget for both your own legal fees and also the other side’s legal fees in the event that you are unsuccessful. You may have visibility of your own legal costs but it is difficult to predict what the other side’s will be. In some cases it may be possible to apply for a costs capping order, which would cap the amount of costs that each party could recover from the other in the event that they win. Overall, judicial review can be very costly, running to tens of thousands of pounds in your costs alone; however, the benefit of a judicial review is that it is one court procedure that can deal with a systemic issue (for example an unlawful government policy), whereas other types of court processes (such as individual private prosecutions) can be very narrow and are unlikely to result in systemic change (save to the extent that new precedents or authorities may be set). Do you have expert legal advisors? Judicial review is a complicated area of law, so it is important that you have an expert team of legal advisors. At Advocates for Animals, we have unique experience in judicial review relating to animal protection and we regularly advise clients on these issues. 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 .

Planning permission might not be the first thing you think of when you hear animal protection law; however, there are many situations where the grant of planning permission could have huge repercussions for animals and their protection. Some examples of controversial planning permission disputes could include a new intensive farm, a new zoo or an animal testing facility. Local authorities are responsible for planning decisions. If you are concerned over a planning proposal or planning permission that has recently been granted, there are steps you can take. 1. Engage a solicitor at an early stage It is not always the case that there will be strong grounds to challenge a planning proposal/permission; however, there are a lot of nuances and complexities in planning decisions that a solicitor will be able to assist you with. For example, a solicitor would be able to advise on key arguments to make during the planning stage with a view of the decision going in your favour; however, in the event it does not this will help ensure you have standing to bring a challenge. 2. Submit a response to the planning application A response is incredibly important. One obstacle to bringing a challenge, in the event planning permission is granted, is whether you have sufficient interest to do so, which is referred to as ‘standing’. A response, therefore, could be used to prove standing. It is also possible that your submission will lead to success and thus avoid the permission being granted in the first place. It is important that this submission contains legitimate and credible objections to the claim in order to give it its best chance at success. You will also want to ensure that all the key reasons to object are within it, which will help you rely on them later should you bring a challenge.  3. Monitor the planning portal  To ensure you do not miss any important information, it is important you monitor the local authority’s planning portal. The key documents you will want to read are: a) the original planning application b) the planning officer’s report c) the planning committee’s decision 4. Are you in time? There is a strict six-week time limit for challenging a planning decision, it is therefore important that you move quickly following the granting of planning permission. This is particularly important as there is an expectation that you will have sent a pre-action protocol letter and received a response from the other side before issuing the claim.  5. Have you got the funds? Funding legal cases can be expensive, although Advocates for Animals does charge far below commercial rates.  Another risk is that should you lose you will likely need to pay the winning side's costs. Many planning cases are covered by the Aarhus Convention, meaning that the costs risk is capped. However, to secure this there are strict rules that need to be complied with. 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 .