Search this site

Advocates for Animals represented a coalition of animal groups challenging the proposed changes to protest and trespass law. Our submission was as follows: Dear Members of Parliament and the House of Lords Introduction Advocates for Animals (AfA) is the UK’s first law firm dedicated to ensuring that animals are given the protection intended by the legislature. This Response is written on behalf of animal protection organisations and concerned individuals named in the Annex. The Response focuses on the parts in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 (the Bill) of most relevance to the signatories. Areas of concern in the Bill Protest Protests already have rigorous requirements placed on them, the police can impose conditions on marches and demonstrations and can even ban a demonstration or march with the approval of the local authority and the Home Secretary. The police also already have a range of powers they can rely on to ensure a protest is kept under control. For example, it is already an offence to use threatening or abusive words or behaviour or to display any sign which is threatening or abusive under the Public Order Act 1986. Further, those who organise a march must give at least seven days’ notice to the police, unless it is 'not reasonably practicable' to do so, although you should still give as much notice as possible. The notice should include the name and address of at least one of the organisers and the route and it is an offence not to provide this. The new law proposes significant changes that could see protests prevented and stopped for minor and trivial reasons. Currently any restrictions on a static protest (as opposed to a march) are limited to location, duration, and limits on the number of people present. There is also no requirement to notify the police of a static protest. The new law will allow the police to impose more conditions on static protests such as: start and finish time, setting noise limits. These rules can be applied to a demonstration by just one person. Currently, if the police want to place restrictions on a protest, they normally have to show it may result in 'serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community'. It is being proposed that protests, both marches and static, will now be conditioned on whether they involve noise that may cause 'serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of the procession' or if the noise has a 'relevant impact' on persons in the vicinity that 'may be significant'. Under The Bill the noise generated in a protest could amount to a relevant impact on persons in the vicinity if it 'may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness' or if 'it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress'. Through the Home office, the Government is given the power to define what the phrases 'serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity' and 'serious disruption to the life of the community' mean for the purposes of the Public Order Act. This can be done without thorough parliamentary scrutiny. Nuisance Further, the new proposal for nuisance is also of concern and could have implications for those who protest in various ways against animal cruelty. The offence of public nuisance is interpreted under the common law (ie judge-made law) and is understood as: A person is guilty of a public nuisance who (a) does an act not warranted by law, or (b) omits to discharge a legal duty, if the effect of the act or omission is to endanger the life, health, property or comfort of the public, or to obstruct the public in the exercise or enjoyment of rights common to all Her Majesty’s subjects. The Bill aims to change the offence as follows: (1) A person commits an offence if— (a) the person— (i) does an act, or (ii) omits to do an act that they are required to do by any enactment or rule of law, (b) the person’s act or omission— (i) causes serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or (ii) obstructs the public or a section of the public in the exercise or enjoyment of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large, and (c) the person intends that their act or omission will have a consequence mentioned in paragraph (b) or is reckless as to whether it will have such a consequence. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) an act or omission causes serious harm to a person if, as a result, the person— (a) suffers death, personal injury or disease, (b) suffers loss of, or damage to, property, (c) suffers serious distress, serious annoyance, serious inconvenience or serious loss of amenity, or (d) is put at risk of suffering anything mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (c). (3) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for the act or omission mentioned in paragraph (a) of that subsection. This is a vast broadening of the previous law. Firstly there no longer needs to be intention to commit a nuisance, just recklessness. It is also enough to prove an offence has been committed if you simply cause serious annoyance or inconvenience or damage to property that does not need to be serious. In addition, no one has to suffer anything, there just needs to be the risk of suffering it. Its scope has also been broadened to include nuisance to 'a section of the public' rather than the current requirement of 'the public.' This offence carries a maximum sentence of ten years. General remarks It is trite but true to say that animals cannot speak for themselves. As such any progress to the welfare and protection of animals is made possible by individuals and organisations speaking out on their behalf. Animals already do not have standing in our courts, so to muffle their mouthpiece in a public arena only puts these vulnerable beings further at risk. The role of animal protection organisations is to give voice to their constituencies, which might otherwise have no means of challenging unlawfulness by public bodies. Their constituencies are the many members of the public concerned about animal welfare and, of course, the animals themselves. The United Kingdom is a nation of animal lovers and from experience most citizens of this country are horrified to learn of some of the abuse that animals face in our society. Protest helps facilitate information and idea exchange. There are many examples of protests leading to important and necessary progress for animals, these include the ban on fur farming and the ban on hunting wild mammals. In addition, the protests that have taken place at docks and outside Parliament have led to the proposed ban on live exports. Every animal activist and group, no matter how moderate, could think of how any of their protest activities may lead to unease or distress; after all explaining what animals go through can be distressing to hear. It is also true that many activists' activities are seen as a serious inconvenience or annoyance, especially to those who wish to hide what is going on. The serious concern with the nuisance provision is that the terms are so vague; we imagine any controversial animal industry or abuser is 'seriously annoyed' by the activities of animal groups and activists. The activities the signatories are concerned with losing are peaceful protest in all its forms without the risk of being guilty of an offence for causing offence. Unlawful curtailment The proposed changes run a serious and real risk of falling foul of the Human Rights Act 2008 which puts into domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The most notable risks include a threat to freedom of expression (Article 10), a threat to freedom of peaceful assembly (Article 11) and for some animal groups and activists a threat to freedom of belief (Article 9), where the manifestation of a belief is also protected. The recent case of Alexei Navalny v Russia stated: Freedom of assembly as enshrined in Article 11 of the Convention protects a demonstration that may annoy or cause offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote. And: Any measures interfering with freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence or rejection of democratic principles – however shocking and unacceptable certain views or words used may appear to the authorities – do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it. It is unlawful for any public body in the United Kingdom to act contrary to the ECHR. Further, acts of Parliament can be deemed incompatible with the ECHR by the courts. Request For the above reasons we ask that you vote against the current version of the Bill until the offending provisions relating to protest and nuisance are removed. Kind regards Edie Bowles Solicitor Annex Animal Aid Animal Equality UK Animal Justice Project Animal Protection Agency Animal Rebellion Catholic Concern for Animals Christian Vegetarian Association Compassion in World Farming Cruelty Free International Crustacean Compassion Four Paws UK Freedom for Animals Greyt Exploitations Hunt Saboteurs Association Jay Mehta Mahavir Trust League Against Cruel Sports Dr Simon Brooman, Senior Lecturer in Law, Liverpool John Moores University OneKind Open Cages People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Respect For Animals The Shellfish Network Surge Dr Steven McCulloch, Senior Lecturer in Human Animal Studies, University of Winchester The Animal Advocacy Project The Animal Interfaith Alliance The Humane League UK Viva! Whale and Dolphin Conservation Wild Welfare World Animal Protection

First UK Animal Law Firm issues legal complaint about large dairy farm in BBC Panorama investigation UK animal law firm Advocates for Animals has sent a legal complaint, on behalf of its client Animal Equality UK, to Carmarthenshire County Council, urging it to investigate the farm covered in a Panorama episode aired on 14 February. The farm involved is a dairy farm that supplies the UK’s largest independent dairy processor and wholesaler: Freshways. Freshways, based in London, distributes dairy products to a number of established retailers and businesses, including Costa Coffee, British Airways, Londis, Budgens and P&O Cruises. Freshways also supplies Morrisons’ wholesale operation, which supplies products to restaurants, cafés and Amazon Fresh. During late 2021, Animal Equality sent an investigator to covertly film the farm over several months. During that time a culture of violence towards the cows and neglect was witnessed, including workers kicking and punching cows in the face and stomach and hitting them with sharp, metal shovels. Sick and injured cows were also left to suffer. On one occasion a cow was left in excruciating pain after her unborn calf had died inside of her. Despite a veterinarian recommending prompt euthanasia, the on-site manager opted to delay action. The veterinarian was recorded saying that 'this is one place where they’d rather just save the money'. The cow died overnight. The treatment shown in the undercover footage reveals widespread suffering. The distressing footage was revealed to millions of viewers on BBC One’s Panorama last night. The programme scrutinised the abuse and neglect taking place on the farm. Abigail Penny, Executive Director of Animal Equality UK, says: 'We are urging the authorities to use the full force of the law to hold this farm accountable for its abusive actions towards animals. A conviction of cruelty won’t help those cows who were brutally beaten or left to die in agony overnight, but it will send a strong message to this industry that the UK will not tolerate such cruelty.'

Last week, The Humane League UK, represented by law firm Advocates for Animals, was in court fighting for justice for the one billion chickens that are reared and slaughtered in the UK each year.  Our argument is clear: the breeding of fast-growing chickens breaches the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 - which states farmed animals can’t be kept if their genes cause them detriment to their health or welfare. We argue these breeds of chicken suffer from painful health and welfare issues due to their speed of growth . The two days in court were for the history books. We witnessed some of the most advanced legal brains in the country acknowledge the importance of this case and engage with each issue with curiosity and competence. The panel of three Lord Justices recognised the impact on chickens and public policy, but did not shy away from carefully examining what the law means when it prohibits the keeping of farmed animals that suffer a ‘detriment’ as a result of their genes.   We say it means detriment suffered when kept in standard farming conditions. The government says it means detriment that is inevitable after all improvements to the environment chickens are raised in are made.  The difference may seem subtle, and on the face of it of little consequence when all the evidence suggests that fast growing chickens cannot be kept in any environment without suffering. However, contrary to how it appears, these different interpretations will produce very different results for chickens. Without underpinning the ‘detriment’ to the reality, we exist in a world of hypotheticals, where a breed could never be banned if an individual farmer could in theory create environmental conditions to remove any detriment. This case comes down to banning breeds prone to detriment versus an obligation to create environments where breeds prone to detriment can be kept without detriment.  The issue with the latter interpretation is that how could it ever be scientifically researched in a world of countless hypothetical scenarios? How could it ever be policed when dealing with one billion animals per year? And how could it be fair on farmers to create this environment to remove the suffering of a chicken, when that suffering has been bred into them? How can a farmer even be expected to find this environment by themselves, far beyond what the law and official guidance tells them to do, with those farmers exposed to prosecution should they not create that environment? We hope the judgment is in our favour and brings clarity, for our sake, for the farmers’ sake and most importantly for the chickens’ sake.  Edie Bowles, Solicitor, Advocates for Animals:  'When I first started working on the case against the fast growth imposed on chickens the first goal was to get us to where we were last week, sitting in a courtroom having the legal protections for farmed animals being taken seriously. Something which should happen as a default, but so seldom does. In fact I overheard someone say with bemusement to a group of people outside a different courtroom ‘have you seen them chanting justice for chickens outside’ with the group responding in laughter. But why shouldn’t there be justice for chickens too? Why don’t their legal protections matter? I refuse to accept that animal legal protections are performative, I believe that the law should work for them too.'  Sean Gifford, Managing Director, The Humane League UK:  'This case represents a groundbreaking opportunity to end one of the greatest animal welfare crises of our time: the farming of fast-growing chickens. These so-called ‘Frankenchickens’ are bred to grow at such unnatural rates that their own bodies fail them—all for profit. Their lives are plagued by suffering, and we believe the law is clear: breeding animals with suffering hardwired into their DNA is illegal and has no place in our food system. We hope the judgment reflects this urgent need for change.'

On 8 November 2024, The Donkey Sanctuary, represented by Advocates for Animals, attended the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) Committee meeting in the Ugandan Parliament. EALA is the legislative arm of the East African Community, a trading bloc of eight countries in East Africa.   The meeting was the first EALA Assembly following  the commitment from the African Union in February this year to implement a continent-wide moratorium on the slaughter of donkeys for their skins. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the issues associated with the trade in donkey skins with the agriculture and trade committees and to explore solutions so the East African Community can honour and implement the AU commitment.  Donkey skins are traded at an alarming rate to produce a gelatine product called ejiao, which is used as a Chinese medicine that is claimed to cure a variety of ailments. The trade originated from China; however, after decimating its own donkey population to meet the demand for the product, Chinese manufacturers have turned to other countries, which includes several countries in East Africa, primarily Kenya and Tanzania.  Donkey farming is often claimed to be a way to meet the demand and to create a sustainable trading opportunity; however, this is not possible due to donkeys' long gestation periods, the high likelihood of one foal at a time, and the significant risk of abortion when donkeys are in a stressful environment. It is telling that no successful farming programme has been set up, including in China. Unable to farm donkeys in order to meet demand, agents for ejiao industry are targeting vulnerable donkey populations around the world. Escalating demand is rapidly outweighing the supply, which in turn is putting East Africa’s donkey populations and the communities that rely on them at risk.  The trade is riddled with legal issues, including widespread non-compliance with animal welfare, disease and environmental laws.  EALA recognises the issue in its two reports on the skin trade in 2021 and 2022 and is now exploring the most suitable way forward.  Quotes Hon.Dr Woda Jeremaih Odok (Ph.D Animal Nutrition/Animal husbandry), EALA  member 'East African Community needs to legislate and regulate donkey's skin business /donkey slaughter for the welfare of the communities which depend on donkey's in their livelihood and to prevent donkey's extinction in EAC because of the high demand of the donkey's skin by other regions . Our donkeys are being slaughtered, skinned in an inhuman way  and sold.out with very minimal price yet the products (Eijao) from their skin are being sold at price of USD 780 per Kg. As I've been  granted leave of the Assembly to introduce a private member bill on Prevention and control of animal transboundary and zoonotic diseases. This bill has part ix which is about Animal welfare This will grant the rights of Animals to be treated and handled well.' Edie Bowles, Solicitor, Advocates for Animals  'I have been working with The Donkey Sanctuary to tackle the donkey skin trade for several years. During that time I have observed widespread illegality at every stage of this cruel industry. Whilst The Donkey Sanctuary continues to  have success with its campaign, with more and more countries questioning and banning the trade, we are working with the East African Community, a key player in this challenge, to bring about a robust regional solution to the problem.'  Dr Otieno Mtula, Regional and Advocacy Campaigns Manager for The Donkey Sanctuary:   'This year has been one of great progress toward ending the cruel and devastating donkey skin trade. When every Member State of the African Union made the commitment in February to ban the slaughter of donkeys for their skins and implement national plans for their welfare, it was a unified decision to protect one of the continent’s most precious resources.   It is therefore with great faith and optimism that we are here in Uganda, among the leaders and decision-makers of East Africa, who now have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to see this commitment become a reality across the region. This is a critical time for donkey-reliant communities here in Africa and promises to be the start of a new era for donkey welfare.' 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 .

We have now been in operation for almost six years.  Everything we have done over those years is to help our clients help animals and we are immensely proud of the progress we have made.   As always it is hard to pick our top achievements from 2024, but below are some highlights. Our goal of having a physical office was finally achieved this year. We are now in the heart of legal London, just by the Royal Courts of Justice, but more importantly we are together as a team, with a place to meet our wonderful clients.  We lost, but on some important points won, our significant Court of Appeal case challenging fast growing chickens on behalf of The Humane League UK. Whilst the appeal was dismissed, it is our clients view that the interpretation the court gave on the law means fast growing chickens can no longer be kept .We will be considering next steps with our client to ensure this happens.  We were granted permission to judicially review the grant of planning permission for the first onshore fish farm on behalf of our client, Animal Equality. The case includes some important legal principles regarding animal welfare in planning decisions and will impact millions of fish. It will be heard in early 2025.  We won a judicial review challenging the planning permission for a new zoo on behalf of Freedom for Animals, we were delighted with the outcome and applaud our client’s tireless efforts.  We continue to spread the word of Advocates for Animals and our work, which in addition to helping our law firm grow also raises awareness of animal law and animal legal protections, something we believe is a vital part in the puzzle to improve the lives of animals. You can see some coverage here and here . We are proud of all our work, which helps two incredibly deserving groups: our hardworking and compassionate clients and the animals who so desperately need the support. Thank you to all of those who continue to support us, we could not do it without you. 2025 here we come!

This week guest writer Daphne Ng, briefly discusses notable differences between Prevention of Cruelty of Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169) ('Cap. 169') and the Animal Welfare Act 2006 ('AWA'), the two main legislations in Hong Kong and the United Kingdom respectively that govern animal welfare. Scope of cruelty offences Section 3 of Cap. 169 penalises specific offences that relate to (1) animal abuse (in the form of torture, kicking or terrorising an animal); (2) neglection of an animal (by failing to provide such animal with food and water); (3) transporting an animal with little space so as to cause them unnecessary pain and suffering; and (4) causing, procuring, or assisting fighting between animals. Conversely, section 4 of the AWA provides a more general prohibition on 'unnecessary suffering' of an animal thereby widening the forms of animal cruelty which amount to an offence. Reasonable knowledge of animal suffering While under section 3 of cap. 169 a person commits an offence if he/she fails to exercise 'reasonable care or supervision' of the relevant animal, section 4 of the AWA states that people who 'knew, or ought to have reasonably have known' their act or failure to act would cause unnecessary suffering to the animal also commit an offence. This creates a wider offence in the UK to cover what the offender reasonably should have known. Positive duty of care In addition to penalising offenders who actively commit animal cruelty, section 9 of the AWA imposes a positive duty of all persons who are responsible for animals (including pet owners) to provide, among other things, a suitable environment and suitable diet for the animals under their care. This positive duty of care however does not currently exist under Cap. 169. Reforms of Cap. 169 Although in 2006 Hong Kong took a step forward in animal welfare protection by increasing the sentences under Cap. 169 from six months imprisonment (perhaps modelled after section 32 of AWA) to 3 years imprisonment and increasing the maximum fines from HK$5,000 to HK$200,000, Hong Kong could still widen the scope of animal cruelty under section 3 of Cap. 169. By amending Cap.169 in line with the AWA it would bring Hong Kong one step closer to advancing its protection of animals to be paralleled to the United Kingdom’s animal welfare system. 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 .

This week's guest writer, Nisha Cardoza, discusses animal protection law in Switzerland. When were animals recognised as 'not-things'? Switzerland could be considered one of the leading countries when it comes to animal welfare in Europe. Under Swiss law, animals were formally recognised as 'not-things' in 2003 ([1]) (Civil Code, Art. 641a). Thus, according to Swiss legislation, animals should be cared for in harmony with their breed and specific needs. The Netherlands and Germany made similar changes in 2011 and 1990, respectively. The European Union formally recognised animal sentience in 2008 with Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( TFEU ). What follows is a brief overview of the Swiss Federal Law on the protection of animals and five statutes relating to their protection at different stages of life and the regulations put in place concerning the keeping of animals for consumption. The Animal Welfare Act and its statute The Animal Welfare Act was enacted in 1981 together with the statute on the protection of animals (OPAn). This act was subsequently revised and the current Animal Welfare Act was enacted in September, 2008. The Animal Welfare Act (LPA) aims to protect the dignity and welfare of vertebrate animals, reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds and fish. Under this act, animals are protected from unnecessary suffering (LPA, Art. 4.2). The keeping of animals is allowed, provided a number of regulations are respected. Animals that are being kept have to be fed, cared for, and guaranteed an environment in which they are free to move (LPA, Art. 6.1). The LPA prohibits the slaughter of mammals without prior stunning (LPA, Art. 21.1). Exception is made for the religious slaughtering of chickens. Therefore, except for poultry, kosher and halal meat, from animals who’ve been killed without prior stunning, can only be purchased in Switzerland if it has been imported. As a result of the Animal Welfare Act, controls are carried out by the respective Cantonal authorities and a trained veterinarian is responsible for the enforcement of the law in each canton (LPA, Art. 32a, 33). The maximum stocking density on a farm is limited to 300 veal calves, 1500 pigs and 18000 hens. The statute on the protection of animals ( OPAn ) came into force at the same time as the Animal Welfare Act. The statute concerns vertebrate animals, cephalopods (mollusks, cuttlefish, octopuses, squids, nautiluses) and decapods (crayfish, crabs, lobsters, prawns, shrimp) and provides more specific information about which practices are permitted to ensure their well-being. Firstly, social animals such as guinea pigs, budgerigars and goldfish are not allowed to be kept alone (OPAn, Art. 13). Secondly, animals are not allowed to be constantly kept on a leash (OPAn, Art. 3). It is illegal to cut piglet's tails off (OPAn, Art. 18), farrowing crates for sows are only allowed to be used during gestation for a maximum of 10 days (OPAn, Art. 48) and a few days before the sow gives birth. Straw or other appropriate material also has to be available so that she can make a nest (OPAn, Art. 50). Lastly, the place in which domestic animals spend the most time, has to let daylight enter (OPAn, Art. 33). What specific guidelines exist for domestic and farmed animals? In 2008, another statute came into force which concerned domestic and farmed animals. Veterinarians and other relevant experts gave their input into this law. This statute concerns topics such as perforated floors, adequate shelter and fodder requirements when the animals are outside and regulations relating to the keeping of calves. Perforated floors are allowed for cattle, pigs, sheep and goats but have to be adapted to the animals’ size (Art. 2). The same year, the Department of the Interior enacted a statute relating to people whose work in some way involved animals (eg.: a farmer, a slaughterhouse employee, or a truck driver transporting animals). The main purpose of the statute was to ensure that people dealing with animals would receive appropriate training regarding correct treatment. Certain training courses were made compulsory and ongoing training was encouraged to enhance animal protection. How must farmed animals be slaughtered? Concerning the slaughter of animals, a statute came into force in December, 2010. This statute concerns the same types of animals as the statute on the protection of animals (OPAn). Within four hours of their arrival at the slaughterhouse, animals such as cattle, sheep, goats and pigs must be slaughtered (OPAnAb, Art. 4 455.110.2). Chickens have to be stunned between twelve and sixty seconds after being hung upside down (OPAnAb, Art. 14). How is the breeding of animals regulated? Lastly, in 2015, a statute came into force that regulated the way in which animals were bred. This statute, however, does not apply to laboratory animal husbandry. The statute stipulates the level of suffering that is deemed acceptable, which animals are not allowed to be bred (including dwarf dogs which, when they reach adulthood, weigh less than 1500 g, cats whose front legs are extremely shortened (kangaroo cats), reptiles with enigma syndrome) (Art.10), and what characteristics and symptoms can lead to moderate or severe constraints on an animal’s wellbeing (deformation of skeleton, skull impacting teeth, eyes and respiratory capacities, among others). What loopholes exist? Although Switzerland has enacted many legal documents to ensure animal protection, the enforcement of these laws has not been sufficient. The Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office found that some slaughterhouses did not fully comply with the rules, especially in small-scale abattoirs. It is also important to note that state employed veterinarians depend on farmers for their job, and therefore find themselves in an obvious conflict of interest. Due to a lack of resources, some stages of the required procedure are not checked properly, especially during slaughter. Moreover, controls carried out by cantonal authorities are scarce (OPAn, Art. 213, Art. 215). Pet shops, for example, only have to be checked once a year, and if, after two consecutive years, no misconduct has been reported, the establishment can go unchecked for three years. Conclusion In conclusion, despite the substantial progress Switzerland has made from a legal perspective relating to the treatment of animals, it appears that there is still much room for improvement, in particular, when it comes to the transparent and effective implementation of protective laws and regulations. There are several ways the system could be improved to ensure the better treatment of animals. This might involve cantons carrying out controls with independent officials who visit farms frequently and always unannounced. Like the U.K slaughterhouses could put in place mandatory CCTV. Furthermore, if something is deemed unethical and illegal in Switzerland it should also not be permitted to be imported, this would include foie gras, frog legs and meat from animals not stunned before slaughter. Tier Im Recht (TIR) is a Swiss non-profit organisation, dedicated to helping animals through better animal welfare legislation. You can find more information about their work on their website . 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 UK has been a pioneer of animal protection laws. In 1822, it passed the world’s first legislation, a limited measure protecting cattle, and protection has progressively increased since then. This week Advocates for Animals’ David Thomas summarises the centrepiece legislation in England and Wales. Protection now extends to animals in all sorts of situations – in the home, on farms, in entertainment, in the wild, during transportation and in laboratories. However, protection is piecemeal and is often limited by what is perceived to be in humankind’s interests. The law is no animal rights charter. England and Wales The Animal Welfare Act 2006 (AWA) covers vertebrate animals, essentially if they are of a domesticated species or under the control of humans. It therefore extends to farm animals, although they have separate legislation too. The authorities can extend protection to sentient invertebrates species. There are two main offences in AWA. The first is causing unnecessary suffering, or allowing it to be caused. Section 4 sets out non-exhaustive criteria of what is meant by ‘unnecessary’, such as: could the suffering have been reduced or avoided; did it benefit the animal or protect a person, property or another animal; was it proportionate given its purpose; and ‘was the conduct … in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person’? The offence covers omissions as well as positive acts. Under section 9 , a person commits an offence ‘if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice’. This creates a positive duty to look after animals properly, not simply a negative one not to cause them harm as with section 4. An animal’s needs include a suitable environment and diet; ability to exhibit normal behaviour patterns; housing with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from pain, suffering, injury or disease. Similarly to section 4, the lawful purpose for which an animal is kept or used is relevant. In practice, that may diminish the protection, because other legislation restricts the extent to which an animal can exhibit natural behaviour or be free from pain. Section 9 does not prevent the humane destruction of an animal. Because the law regards animals as property, there is nothing to prevent an owner from (humanely) killing their perfectly healthy companion animal. Similarly, if someone deliberately injures someone else’s animal, as well as animal cruelty offences they commit criminal damage, a property offence. The maximum term of imprisonment for these offences is 6 months, although the Government has committed to increasing this to five years. A fine may also be imposed. The court can deprive a convicted person of ownership of an animal and disqualify them from involvement with animals. The authorities are given various other powers, for example to seize animals in distress. The authorities can also make regulations to promote welfare and issue codes of practice. Codes have been issued, for example, for farm animals, cats and dogs. Breach of a code is relevant to, but not determinative of, whether one of the main offences has been committed. In addition, the authorities can require particular activities involving animals to be licensed or registered. So, the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018 require the keeping or training of animals for exhibition, the breeding of dogs, the boarding of cats and dogs and selling animals as companion animals to be licensed in certain circumstances. AWA does not apply to anything lawfully done to animals in laboratories under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Similarly, it does not apply to ‘anything which occurs in the normal course of fishing’. Scotland and Northern Ireland Scotland and Northern Ireland are beyond the scope of this blog; however, in summary the nations have their own legislation, which is broadly similar to AWA. This is the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 respectively. 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 .

This week, guest writer, Marine Baptista Rosa, explores animal protection laws in Finland. Despite its modest population of 5,5 million people, Finland is home to a vibrant animal protection advocacy movement. Animal justice is an increasingly present topic on university curriculums and in the political agenda. Finnish animal protection law Due to its membership in the European Union (EU), Finland’s national law on animal protection is bound by EU treaties and EU animal law. It also has its own domestic legislation. The most important national legislation on animal protection is the Animal Welfare Act , which applies to all animals. The Animal Welfare Act contains provisions on a variety of specific topics ranging from animal competitions, the keeping and care of animals in performances, circuses, and zoos to inspection rules. In addition to the Animal Welfare Act, Finland has special rules on hunting, fishing, veterinary medication, animal breeding, artificial propagation of animals, animal testing on vertebrates, animal transportation, gene technology, and nature conservation. For some examples, check out the Animal Transport Act , the Act on the Use of Animals for Experimental Purposes , and the Hunting Act , all of which have specific animal welfare provisions. Relevant authorities In Finland, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is the highest authority steering and controlling the enforcement of animal welfare legislation. Operating right under the Ministry, the Finnish Food Authority is the central government authority responsible for monitoring the wellbeing of animals used in agriculture. The Regional State Administrative Agencies oversee the compliance of the law in their respective regions. Finally, the main authorities controlling animal welfare control at the local level are municipal veterinarians, veterinary officers, animal protection supervisors, and the police. The future However, despite these protections, the active community and the fact 74% of Finnish citizens being opposed to fur farming activities , the country remains the world’s largest fox fur producer . The good news is that, in August 2020, the Social Democratic Party of Finland (SDP), which is the largest political party in the country, and current Prime Minister Sanna Marin’s party, committed to working towards ending fur farming and fur sales in Finland within a reasonable transition period. Further to this, a group of Finnish lawyers and legal scholars - The Finnish Animal Rights Lawyers Society – has submitted a legislative proposal on fundamental animal rights to be included in the Constitution of Finland. The proposal aims at strengthening the legal status of animals in the Finnish Constitution. Social pressure proved effective on the historic stand against fur farming, although that was only a first step. Hopefully, civil demand might ignite even further strides for a better future for animals in Finland. 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 .

600 million pigs are killed in China each year. If this number represented the average sized pigs, snout to tail, they would cover the distance between London and Beijing. And that’s just pigs, never mind the countless other animals slaughtered for the meat industry. This week’s guest writer who is located in China, will look at what legislation is in place to protect the welfare of animals in the People’s Republic. The overall picture China ranks Class E on the Animal Protection Index (API) , along with Ukraine, Pakistan and Nigeria. To put this in context, Belarus and Algeria are in class F and Iran and Azerbaijan are in the bottom ranking Class G. The UK is Class B. Chinese law does not recognise animal sentience. Farm animals The majority of China’s farm animals live in horribly overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. There are laws that were brought in for public health reasons that contain some welfare provisions, such as the Animal Husbandry Law of the People’s Republic of China (amended in 2015), but these largely focus on the protection of genetic resources rather than safeguarding individual animals. As the demand for meat continues to rise, according to Peter J. Li, ‘China has embraced intensive farming with associated practices that are being restricted or banned in other countries’ such as the EU. Fur farms Following coronavirus outbreaks on European mink farms, there has been at least passing discussion on how these animals are kept in countries including Denmark and Italy – and many farms have closed for good. In China, few regulations on fur farms exist , despite it being the world’s biggest fur producer. Perversely, the closure of European mink farms may well increase the demand from China. Wild animals In response to the outbreak of COVID-19 earlier this year, the National People’s Congress introduced a full ban on the trade of wildlife for the purpose of consumption . However, wild animals continue to be used and abused in the entertainment industry, as pets and as ingredients for traditional Chinese medicine, the latter being legitimised through a permit system. When the practice of extracting bear bile generates more than 10 billion Chinese Yuan profit every year, it comes as no shock that the practice has not yet been prohibited or any restrictions placed on how the animals are kept. That said, in a landmark decision which came into effect at the end of 2017, China banned the domestic ivory trade (a worldwide multi-billion yuan industry). So, perhaps there is hope for the bile-bears yet. Domestic animals As more and more people are choosing to keep pets, China’s Ministry of Agriculture recently reclassified dogs as ‘companion animals’ rather than livestock. Moreover, in April, 2020, the city of Shenzhen banned the sale and consumption of both cat and dog meat . Animal testing Also in 2020, the Chinese National Medical Products Administration put an end to mandatory animal tests on imported cosmetics, having already done so for domestically produced products. The future So long as China fails to recognise animal sentience the future looks bleak for the way animals are kept, transported and slaughtered. The coronavirus epidemic brought unsanitary conditions in Chinese wet markets to the world’s attention and it may be that outside pressure will result in legally sanctioned change – particularly following the in-country investigation WHO have been permitted to carry out post-epidemic. On the other hand, we’ve been here before with SARS in 2003 and the issues were forgotten as the epidemic faded. On a more positive note, however more young people in China are recognising animal sentience and some are pushing for change. Only time will tell whether pressure from gradually changing public opinion and fear of further epidemics will prove sufficient to force new legislation. 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 .

In Brazil, animal protection rules are placed within different levels in the hierarchy of law. This week guest writer Marina Baptista Rosa will explore what it means in practice that Brazil is among the few countries of the world where animal interests are protected in the Constitution. The other countries are Switzerland, India, Slovenia, Germany, Luxembourg, Austria, and Egypt. The Brazilian Constitution provides that protecting the environment, the fauna, and the flora is a duty imposed on the public power and on the society and forbids practices that endanger ecologic functions, cause species extinction, or submit animals to cruelty (Article 225, §1, VII). National scope legislation Article 32 of the law on environmental crimes (national law n° 9.605/1998) provides that criminal acts such as abusing, mistreating, injuring, or mutilating wild, domestic, native, or exotic animals are punishable by up to one year of detention plus fine payments. The sanction might be raised up to a third if the action results in the death of the animal. In 2020, an amendment was approved by the congress to include another aggravating to this article. Now, when committed against a cat or a dog, the crime is punishable by up to five years of detention, fine payments, and a guard ban. Case law demonstrates that Article 32 has been applied in a broad sense. For instance, the abandonment of companion animals has been broadly regarded as animal mistreatment in court decisions, and as such, has been punishable in the ways mentioned above. Another relevant law with national enforcement is law nº 11.794/2008, which regulates the scientific use of animals in Brazil. It instituted the National Council for Animal Experimentation Control (CONSEA), which is the body responsible to accredit institutions using animals for experimentation and to elaborate norms making this use as humane as possible. Local scope legislation Brazil, being a country of continental dimensions, has many different forms of cultural manifestation. Unfortunately, some of them have questionable values. For instance, ‘bull riding ’ events are still present in various regions of the country, although social pressure has led to the creation of national law nº 10.519/2002, which introduced minimum welfare standards to protect animals in this context. Even though the practice is not yet prohibited at the national level, many municipalities have introduced bans within their jurisdictions. Other common examples of practices prohibited in several cities across the country include the ban of animal traction vehicles used for cargo transport and the prohibition of ritualistic slaughter. Conclusion Brazilian activists were optimistic after the recent amendment in Article 32 of the law on environmental crimes, raising the penalties of crimes committed against companion animals. In addition, case law analysis shows that the constitutional provision has proved effective when animal protection clashes with certain human interests. Perhaps, the greater problem right now lays in the lack of implementation at the national level. Fortunately, many municipalities have been proactive to improve the lives of animals in different contexts and local legislative initiatives have been increasingly diffused across the country. 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 .

Over the last decade, the Polish animal advocacy movement has grown significantly stronger. Animal protection issues are now increasingly present in public discourse as well as on the political agenda. To a large extent, this is thanks to the still-developing but dynamic community of non-governmental organisations speaking up for animals. Guest writer, Iga Glazewska, will explore the main animal protection laws in Poland. Animal protection laws in Poland Poland, as a member state of the European Union (EU), is bound by EU law with regard to animal protection. Admissible methods of animal farming are regulated by the Organisation of Livestock Breeding and Reproduction Act of 2020, which incorporates the provisions of two EU directives and regulation in this area. The provisions of the EU directives concerning the protection of wildlife, natural habitats, animals in zoos and marine environment are implemented in Poland by the Nature Protection Act of 2004. In addition, the key, domestic legislation regarding animal welfare in Poland is the Animal Protection Act 1997 (APA), which incorporates the provisions of six EU directives and one regulation which concern the protection of animals at the time of slaughter, and the welfare of animals in transit and in farming. The protection of animals used in laboratories is a matter regulated by a separate act - the act on the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific or Educational Purposes 2015. On 22nd May, Poland celebrates Animal Rights Day to commemorate adopting the Animal Protection Act. Despite this, significant gaps remain in Polish legislation. According to Polish law, animals do not really have legal personhood. While animals are recognised as 'living beings capable of suffering' and 'not-things' (APA, art. 1.1) and as 'requiring humane treatment' (APA, art. 5), the APA also states that 'in matters not covered by the Act, the legislation to things shall apply accordingly to animals' (APA, art.1.2) (‘things’ here essentially meaning property or inanimate objects). Moreover, the APA only protects vertebrate animals, thereby excluding animals like crabs and lobsters which science has shown feel pain. Those vertebrate animals which are protected are further divided by the act into several groups, including domestic animals, farm animals, animals in entertainment and free-living (wild) animals. These arbitrary divisions—based on how humans relate to them rather than on their inherent characteristics—result in animals being protected in different ways and to different extents. It puts exceptional emphasis on domestic animals, and the welfare of other groups of animals is not sufficiently secured. A good example is provided by the chapter on wildlife – two out of only three articles of the chapter concern ways of obtaining animal bodies and hunting trophies. Crimes against animals The APA includes certain prohibitions with regard to the killing of animals and animal abuse. Despite the general prohibition on killing animals, the APA enumerates broad exceptions to the prohibition, such as killing animals raised for meat and skin, hunting, or fishing. Fur farming and ritual slaughter without stunning is also allowed. These exceptions highlight the ethical inconsistency in the law, as the APA emphasises that all vertebrate animals, as sentient beings, 'should be respected, protected and cared for' (APA, art. 1.1). Animal abuse is defined as 'inflicting pain or suffering, or knowingly allowing pain or suffering to be inflicted' (APA, art. 6.2). The APA contains an open catalog of what ‘in particular’ is recognised as abuse, such as deliberately injuring an animal or using cruel methods in animal farming. Importantly, the APA classifies both 'unnecessary' killing of animals and animal abuse as crimes – and the Polish Penal Code subjects such actions to sanctions, including fines, forfeiture of the animal, bans on animal ownership, and sentences of imprisonment from 3 months up to 3 years, or 5 years in cases of extreme cruelty. Law enforcement Although the Animal Protection Act requires comprehensive amendments, much of the problem lies in the lack of effective enforcement. This concerns as much the police as prosecutors and judges who often consider offences involving animals to be negligible. According to research conducted by two NGOs, over 70% of all animal cruelty cases are discontinued, and only 19% end up in court. Despite the Veterinary Inspection and the appropriate public administration bodies being responsible for the implementation of the APA, NGOs are still far too often forced to step in. What is the future of animal protection in Poland? The APA requires amending, in a way that would acknowledge and reflect the latest scientific knowledge in the field of animal sentience, and be ethically coherent. However, until this happens, strengthening enforcement mechanisms remains a priority. Hopefully, law enforcement agencies and judicial system will finally respond to the changing social awareness and efforts of the third sector, and start treating animal cruelty cases with the seriousness non-human animals deserve. 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 .