Singapore comprises a mere 728 square kilometres of landmass and population of 5.6 million people. Located in Southeast Asia at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula, its geographically advantageous position has aided in enhancing economic growth and securing itself as a world trade centre. Singapore has adopted a parliamentary system of government based on the Westminster model where the legal system is common law. This week's guest writer, Isabelle Bloomstein, will explore legislation pertaining to animal welfare on the small island city-state. Companion animals  The companion animal population of Singapore is on the incline, with a dog population of 114,000 in 2023 , a 3% rise from 2019. In 2023, reports of animal cruelty rose by an alarming 79%, reaching an eleven year high  with the majority of those comprising welfare and neglect cases linked to unsatisfactory living conditions. The increase is most likely due to a shift in mindset where people are more inclined to report instances of animal cruelty on social media, as opposed to an actual increase in the cases of animal cruelty. Legislation protecting the welfare of companion animals can be found under the Animal and Birds Act 1965 (as amended in 2014).  Section 41C establishes a positive duty of care; any owner, person in charge of an animal (whether temporary or permanent) must care for animals in accordance with the Codes of Animal Welfare issued by the Animals and Veterinary Service (AVS). The standard of care required includes the following:  the animal is provided with adequate and suitable food and water, taking into account its dietary needs; the animal is provided with adequate shelter; the animal is not kept in confinement, conveyed, lifted, carried or handled in a manner or position that subjects the animal to unreasonable or unnecessary pain or suffering; and the animal is protected from, and rapidly diagnosed with, any significant injury or disease. Section 42 of the Animal and Birds Act 1965  creates an offence of animal cruelty in instances where any person:  Physically beats, tortures, hurts or abets in hurting an animal. Terrifies or infuriates an animal. Causes unnecessary pain or suffering to an animal or, as the owner, allows the animal under their care to suffer.  Forces an animal to work when it is sick or otherwise unfit to do so.  Uses the animals in any capacity related to animal fighting activities.  Wild animals  Despite its modest land mass and dense population, the city- state is one of the greenest cities in the world. Thanks to government initiatives incorporating nature into the urban landscape and a focus on preserving natural reserves, Singapore leads the way as 1st in the Green Cities Index in Asia . That being said, biodiversity has suffered at the expense of rapid urbanisation, with a total of 37% of native flora and fauna having vanished.   The Wildlife Act (1965) , which covers any mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish or invertebrate, whether of a wild nature or otherwise, is said to be an act for the protection, preservation and management of wildlife for the purposes of maintaining a healthy ecosystem and safeguarding public safety and health and for related matters. Under Section 5A-C, a person may not intentionally feed, release, kill, trap or keep any wildlife without first obtaining written permission to do so. However, in circumstances involving damage to property, Section 6 declares it not unlawful for the occupier to trap, kill or take wildlife that was found to be damaging property or crops on the land. The onus of proof lies on the person alleging the fact to prove that the wildlife did in fact cause damage.  Section 8  provides that a person may not offer for sale, sell or export (dead or alive) any wildlife without permission from the Director-General.  Under Section 9,  a person may not import any living wildlife into Singapore without approval.  Farm animals As for the welfare of farm animals, legislation is limited owing to the fact that land- scarce Singapore is almost entirely dependent on imports for its meat requirements, the majority of which is sourced from Brazil, Australia and the United States , who are the main suppliers of Singapore’s frozen beef and pork. Regulation of imported meat is governed by the Singapore Food Agency (SFA), a statutory board that sets out standards for food-related matters within the country.  Singapore does import live pigs from Malaysia  currently and previously Indonesia before an outbreak of African Swine Flu caused the cessation of shipments. These live pigs are processed at the only abattoir in the country.  Laws governing the welfare of animals intended for slaughter are mandated by the SFA under the Wholesome Meat and Fish Act 1999 . Under Section 42  of that act, the Minister may make rules, which has happened in the form of the Wholesome Meat and Fish (Slaughter- Houses) Rules . These rules relate to any animal intended for slaughter for meat products; they decree that all animals must be allowed sufficient rest and water before slaughter.  Specific conditions for different species have also been created, which include the following:  The Conditions of Licensing for Pig Slaughter Houses , which under Section 1.20, states that the method of slaughter shall be as humane as possible and approved by the Veterinary Authority. And under Section 6.3, approved stunning systems should be adopted.  The Conditions of Licensing for Poultry Slaughter Houses , which stated that  the method of sIaughter shaII be as humane as possibIe and approved by the SFA. It also dictates the chickens be stunned first with the appropriate voltage for their size before being slaughtered.  Animals involved in traffic accidents  The government has enacted regulations in relation to animals harmed by vehicles by way of amendments to Section 84 2A of the Road Traffic Act . The act now imposes an obligation on drivers to stop and seek help, but only where there is a reasonable belief the animals have an owner or where the animals poses a threat to other road users.  Conclusion  In line with increased growing sentiment for animals, legislation penalties for animal cruelty in Singapore have risen substantially in the last two decades.  In practice, the laws in place are only effective to the extent that they are enforced. In the period from 2019-2023, 1250 cases of alleged animal cruelty were reported. Of those, during 2019-2022 only 60 cases were found to be animal cruelty  with enforcement action taken. While this is progress in the right direction, there is still much that needs to change.  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 .

A major barrier for activists in speaking out against animal oppression, or publicising the results of investigations, can be the threat of defamation proceedings. Those of us of a certain age will remember the 'McLibel' case. But, are defamation proceedings something you really need to worry about? Well, with a little foreknowledge, probably not. Guest writer and barrister Alan Robertshaw has set out a general, and hopefully practical, guide as to what defamation is; so you’ll be able to protect yourself from the threat of proceedings, but still be able to speak out or report. Definition of defamation Let’s start with what defamation actually is. Simply put, it’s publishing an untrue statement of fact about a person that would tend to make 'right minded' members of society think less of them. Now, to break that down a bit: Publishing means communicating to a third party; it doesn’t apply to personal conversations you can say what you want to someone’s face. Be careful though of inadvertently publishing to a third party. Make sure you can’t be overheard; and if you write to someone, or email them, mark the envelope or email header 'Private and Confidential. To be opened by addressee only.' That way, if the recipient allows someone else access to their mail, they’re deemed to have consented to the publication. You can be regarded as publishing someone else’s statement if you refer to it, or facilitate its dissemination; for instance by allowing comments on your website. There are special protections however in such circumstances. Untrue just has its everyday meaning. One unusual feature of defamation, is that generally it's for the Defendant (the person who made the statement) to prove it’s true. The Claimant (the person the statement was about) doesn’t have to prove it’s false. That’s counter to the usual rule in civil cases that it’s for the Claimant to prove their case. In civil cases the standard of proof is 'the balance of probabilities'; that’s just 'is it more likely than not?', which is often expressed as 'greater than 50%'. That’s very different to criminal law where the standard is 'So that you are sure' or, as they only say on TV, 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Statement is usually words; written or spoken; but it doesn’t have to be. Pictures , gestures, indeed any way of communicating can all amount to a statement. Placing someone’s waxwork next to the chamber of horrors was held to be defamatory; so who knows what the courts will make of memes? The statement has to be taken as a whole though; in the context of the entire publication. So, for example, a seemingly defamatory headline might in fact not be if the rest of the story puts it in its true context. Of fact means just that, opinions are fine. But be careful not to frame a factual allegation as an opinion; 'In my opinion, he’s a crook' is still a statement of fact. One safeguard is that 'mere vulgar abuse' can’t form a cause of action; so feel free to be as gratuitously insulting as you want. Person doesn’t just include humans. Why non human animals aren’t regarded as persons by the law, but corporations are, is a subject for another day (and one I welcome any opportunity to vent about) but there we are. Companies can’t claim hurt feelings of course, but they can claim for material loss. You don’t have to name the person. It can be enough if the public, or a section of the public, would know who you were referring to. Also, be careful when using names in fiction; you may accidentally give the villain of your work a real person’s name; and then they could sue. That happens quite a bit with fictional companies; so maybe do a bit of Googling first. The traditional advice to authors was to always say the bad guys were bad in bed so no-one would be tempted to say 'That’s clearly meant to be me!’. You can defame people by reference to a group but not if it’s a large group. So, 'Such and such legal firm are crooks!' could cause problems; 'All lawyers are crooks' is fine. Right minded is judged by the supposed standards of the day. Saying someone is gay or promiscuous is no longer defamatory for example, because no right minded person should care. The allegation must be taken with regard to the subject though. Saying you saw someone eat a bacon sandwich wouldn’t generally be defamatory but it could be if the person was an outspoken vegan. One area where this is relevant to activists might be an accusation that someone was a police informer. That could cause their peer group and friends to 'shun and avoid them' (a traditional test for defamation) but it wouldn’t be defamatory because 'right minded' people are deemed to support law and order. Think less of them refers to the fact that defamation is about reputation, not character. If someone is already held in low regard, they might not be able to bring a claim if the untrue statement couldn’t make people’s opinion of them any worse. The audience also matters. If the only people who became aware of the statement wouldn’t believe it anyway, then it’s probably not defamatory. Categories of defamation Defamation was traditionally separated into libel, slander, and malicious falsehood. Libel was where there was a ‘permanence’ to the statement, usually meaning it was in writing, whereas slander concerned more transient matters. That distinction is breaking down a bit in the digital age; with the courts regarding videos as libel and social media comments as slander. However, now that there’s a requirement to show actual serious loss in all forms of defamation, the distinction is less relevant. Previously, libel was actionable per se, even when there was no loss. Malicious falsehood is just a parallel form of defamation; the history of which is probably only of concern to lawyers. It is the cause of action companies often use though; and it has a slight practical significance in that, with malicious falsehood, the Claimant has the burden of proving the statement is false. Defences The principal defences to a defamation claim are: Truth; Honest Opinion, Publication on a matter of public interest, Operators of Websites, Peer reviewed statements in scientific or academic journals, and Reports protected by privilege. We can look at each of these briefly in turn. Truth - This seems fairly self explanatory. If something is true, then it can’t be a cause of action and, so long as the main allegations are true, it doesn't matter if you get a few details wrong if they don’t really add anything. Remember though, in libel or slander, it’s for you to prove that it’s true. You also have to be careful about exactly what you’re saying. 'Everyone says Joe Smith is an animal abuser' might be literally true but the underlying allegation is about the abuse and that’s the bit that you’d have to prove. And, contrary to what you see on TV, adding “allegedly...' doesn’t get you off the hook. Also, beware when a statement could have multiple meanings, some of them defamatory and others not. In libel and slander cases, courts apply a ‘single meaning’ test. That is, they ask how most people would interpret the meaning, regardless of how the publisher meant it. One of the differences with malicious falsehood is courts allow statements to have multiple meanings. So, if you can point to a non defamatory interpretation, you’re in the clear. Honest opinion - To raise this defence, you need to satisfy a three part test. The statement has to be an opinion, not an assertion of fact; you need to refer to the facts that caused you to form that opinion; although that only has to be in general terms, you don’t need chapter and verse; and the opinion has to be one that an honest person could come to if they knew the same facts. It doesn’t matter if someone else might have come to a different conclusion. The opinion has to be genuinely yours, though. The defence fails if you don’t actually think that; even if someone else reasonably could. Publication on a matter of public interest - This is perhaps the most useful defence for activists because it protects you not just in relation to opinion, but also when you make an assertion of fact. To qualify, the statement must have been made in relation to a matter of public interest; and you must have reasonably believed it was in the public interest to have made the statement. The courts look at all the circumstances and context when considering whether you were reasonable; and the reasonableness of your belief is assessed by an objective standard; but the law gives wide scope to what may be reasonable. Basically, courts regard just about any action as reasonable unless no reasonable person would have done it; and it doesn’t matter if most people wouldn’t have, so long as someone else might have. Of particular relevance to activism is that, if you’re commenting on legal proceeds that you’re a party to, you can pretty much say what you want without even considering whether it might be true; and courts are expressly forbidden from taking that into account when deciding if it was reasonable. The courts are also slow to interfere with editorial decisions about what is in the public interest. Operators of websites - The details of this defence are beyond the scope of this post but at its simplest: you’re not liable for what someone else posted on your site unless you’d been told about it and did nothing. Peer reviewed statements - This protects both authors of journal articles, and anyone who quotes them. To qualify, the statement must relate to a matter of scientific or academic interest; and have been reviewed by either the editor or one or more experts on the subject. Reports protected by privilege - So long as your report is a 'fair and accurate' representation of what was said, you can refer to anything that arose in any legislature, court, or tribunal anywhere in the world. Of possible utility to activists, this also applies to reports about any 'international conference'. The requirement for serious harm A major recent change in defamation laws is that now Claimants must show that they have suffered serious harm; and where that’s a commercial organisation, harm means serious financial loss; or at least the real likelihood of that happening. Also, courts are a lot more willing to prevent a claim from going forward when the number of people who became aware of the statement was small; or any audience wouldn’t have been that interested anyway. As one judge put it:'In the old days we provided the pitch and the referee and let the parties play on it any game they wanted. Those days are gone.' So, the mere fact someone has a good defamation case doesn’t mean the court will allow it to proceed if at the end of the day no one really cares. Time limits for defamation actions If someone wants to sue for defamation they must bring the claim within twelve months of the statement being made; and time starts running from the first time it was made; the clock doesn’t restart just because the statement is repeated. Conclusion So, that’s defamation in a nutshell. In a future post, we can look at some of the procedural aspects, should anyone actually bring a claim. Hopefully however, with the above, you’ll feel comfortable fending off any attempts to silence or intimidate you. If you’re unsure how to respond to a groundless threat of defamation proceedings, just copy what defamation lawyers do and say 'We refer you to the reply in Arkell -v- Pressdram '. That was a case in which someone threatened defamation proceedings against a magazine, and said the amount of damages sought would depend on the magazine’s response. The magazine’s response was 'F**k off'. 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 Monday two men who ate dead, uncooked squirrels at a vegan food fair were found guilty of a public order offence and fined. This was a crass, gratuitous act of carnist trolling, by callous individuals whose food-related ethics could not be further from most animal rights activists. As such, animal lovers may be tempted to celebrate their punishment at the hands of the criminal justice system. However, guest writer Sam March will look at why this was no victory for animals, and still less for animal activists. Deonisy Khlebnikov, 29, and Gatis Lagzdins, 22, are anti-vegan activists. They believe 'veganism is malnutrition'. They promote and celebrate the right to eat other animals. In order to put vegans off their food and raise awareness of the perceived dangers of veganism, they publicly consumed raw squirrels outside a vegan stall in Soho. Several people complained and asked them to stop, one young boy with autism became visibly distressed. Two animals were killed, and two anti-vegans were punished; but this was not an animal protection case. The protestors were convicted of using disorderly behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress. This is a public order offence; the victims of which are those members of the human public likely to be distressed. In order for this to be considered an animal protection case, animals’ rights or welfare laws would need to be engaged. The hapless squirrels had no rights: they had no standing to bring any kind of claim themselves, they were in no way recognised as victims and the law offered them no protection against being shot as ' game '. When game is shot, it is reduced to a mere thing. The Defendants could have been prosecuted for the same offence had they, for instance, eaten their own vomit to similar effect. Once any perception of animal protection motivations is dismissed with regard to the prosecution, the case appears in a different light. It is no victory for animal activists, or any activists. It is a victory of the state over people’s right to protest. Essentially, two protestors were convicted and fined for doing something that is not, in and of itself, illegal; but became illegal when done in a way that was likely to distress people by, in this instance, putting them off their food. Before charging a suspect, crown prosecutors must be satisfied that it is in the public interest to prosecute. The fact that such a petty act of protest passed this test should worry animal and vegan activists. Using distress to put people off their food is a staple of vegan activism. In November last year, vegan activists stormed a steakhouse , playing records of animals being slaughtered. Whilst the damning coverage of this in the media suggests perhaps this wasn’t vegan activism at its most effective; the chants of 'It’s not food, it’s violence,' are pretty typical of vegan activism. The meat and dairy industries are undeniably brutal; what happens daily in battery farms around the world is one of humanity’s greatest moral atrocities. Exposing this is bound to be distressing; and that distress in turn is a vital tool in changing attitudes towards animals and food. Protestors today play an important role in shaping the law, policy and morals of the future. This is why it is so important that human rights such as freedoms of belief, assembly and expression are protected. You may not agree with Khlebnikov and Lagzdins’ beliefs, but they have a right to have and express them. They expressed these through what, under current law, is no more than a petty act of protest. You may believe that the current law is wrong to allow them to procure or eat dead squirrels, but that isn’t what they were punished for. Justice for animals is about stopping abusive treatment that harms animals, not punishing petty disorder that makes humans feel distressed. As such, their convictions are not evidence of progress for animal activists, they only serve to illustrate the increasingly draconian approach of the police and CPS towards protestors, an approach that will primarily harm those closest to our causes. For instance, just last week it emerged that the MET and CPS are working together to bring the vast majority of Extinction Rebellion suspects, more than 900 cases , to court over the coming months. The prosecution of petty protestors, even those whose actions or causes we disagree with, should concern activists of all persuasions. 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 .

Animal Rights Activism and Employment Law As believers in animal rights and welfare, it is almost expected of us to engage in activism and proselytising. As the case of Jordi Casamitjana shows: the cost can be high when our beliefs compel us to act. So, whilst we are used to making sacrifices for animals; here guest writer and barrister Alan Robertshaw would like to examine the potential consequences in the workplace when we express our beliefs; and whether employment law offers any degree of protection for activist employees. Politics or morality? A complicating factor is that animal rights activism can be both a political stance and a philosophical belief. Whilst English law contains protections for the holding and expression of both political and philosophical views; there is more protection for the latter. There is, however, often a degree of overlap. Activity within work Generally, employers have an absolute right to control or restrict conduct in the workplace. This could involve prohibitions on discussion about politics or beliefs; and/or the wearing of clothing with slogans or items related to religion or belief. Such restraint though has to be justifiable and proportionate. Different considerations might apply to staff dealing with customers to those working behind the scenes. Employers have to be consistent, though. Ethical veganism, and respect for animal life, are almost certainly 'protected beliefs' within the meaning of the Equality Act. That is, they are afforded the same respect as religious beliefs. So, if an employer allows the wearing of religious iconography; then they would have to allow vegans the same. That means if your colleague can wear a crucifix, then arguably you can wear the Vegan symbol. Activity outside work All employment contracts are deemed to contain an implied term of 'trust and confidence' between employees and employers. That term has been held to include a duty on the employee not to bring his employer into 'disrepute'; which has been interpreted to cover conduct outside of work. There is of course an obvious tension here between that duty and the employee’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly. An employer, whose clients include members of minority ethnic groups, may well be justified in prohibiting employees' membership of violent far right organisations; just as a legitimate public safety concern. However, the mere fact that potential customers may not approve of particular views, or even conduct, will generally not be grounds for dismissal or even prohibition of expressing those views or engaging in activism raising from them, where those views fall into the category of protected belief. So, for example, the employment tribunal held that a dismissal of a hunt saboteur was unlawful, even though customers were boycotting his employer because of his activities. The tribunal held that 'respect for the sanctity of animal life' was a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and that included acting on this belief. It should be noted that the usual 'qualifying period' of twelve months before an unfair dismissal claim can be brought does not apply in such circumstances. An employee could bring a claim at any stage; and even prior to employment if they were rejected for a job because of their beliefs. ‘Unlawful’ activity We can see then that holding views related to animal rights is protected; as is expression of those views, which would include taking part in demonstrations and marches. But what if our views end up being expresses through unlawful activity; whether that be civil disobedience, or beyond? The first consideration is whether we even need to tell our employers. Obviously, if we appear on the news being dragged into a police van, they may find out that way; but is there an obligation to inform them otherwise? That depends on the nature of your employment contract. There may well be a term that imposes a requirement to notify your employer of any convictions, or even merely being charged. Just being charged, or even convicted, though, is not determinative. In order to take action over such things, employers must show a compelling justification. A conviction for assault, for example may be more significant for a teacher than a lighthouse keeper; and minor public order convictions, such as for a refusal to comply with a condition on a march, might not be relevant at all. It should also be noted that a conditional discharge, which is a common disposal for such offences, isn’t technically a conviction, but I will cover more about ‘criminal’ penalties in a future article. Conclusion Obviously, this is a complex topic. Cases will be fact specific and different considerations will apply in every one. Hopefully, however, this article has highlighted factors to be aware of. Such an article, though, can never be a substitute for proper legal advice. Of course, the employment contract doesn’t just work one way. What if your employer’s actions amount to criminal, or merely just disreputable conduct? Can you bring that to people’s attention? To find out, tune in next time when we will be taking a look at ‘whistleblowing’ and the Public Interest Disclosure Act. 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 .

Activists are often on the receiving end of injunctions; the recent Canada Goose case being one such example. Guest writer and barrister Alan Robertshaw will address, very briefly, a basic overview of what injunctions are. Whilst we hope this helps activists, this should not be taken as legal advice, as each case is unique. At their most basic, injunctions are just orders of the court telling people to do something, or, more often, to not do something. There are two main types of injunctions; permanent and interim. Permanent injunctions are imposed after a full trial. Interim injunctions, however, can be imposed at very short notice, without the person on the receiving end necessarily being aware of their application. They are used where there is an urgent need to prevent an activity, either to preserve the status quo pending a full trial on the facts or to prevent irreparable harm. In practice, an interim injunction can have a permanent effect if it prohibits an action for which there was just one opportunity. The principles governing the grant of interim injunctive relief were explained in a case called American Cyanamid. The broad principles are: (i) The Court must satisfy itself that there is a serious question to be tried. (ii) Applications should be decided primarily on the balance of convenience. (iii) An interim injunction should be refused if damages would adequately compensate the claimant (and the defendant will be able to pay). (iv) An interim injunction should be granted if the claimant's cross-undertaking in damages would adequately compensate the defendant (and the claimant would be able to pay). (v) If damages would not fully compensate either party, the balance of convenience decides the issue. (vi) If the balance of convenience favours neither party, the relative strengths of the parties' respective cases on the merits may be taken into account if one case is disproportionately stronger. (vii) If other factors are finely balanced, the Court should maintain the status quo. There must be an underlying legal basis for the application. That could be harassment, interference with rights, recovery or preservation of property, etc. Basically, anything that would give you a claim to sue someone. The ‘balance of convenience’ is a test that considers which party would suffer more if the application went against them. Applications for injunctions can be made ‘on notice’ or ‘without notice’. That’s just the current legal terms for whether the other side gets a chance to speak at the application. Sometimes the older terms ‘inter parties’ or ‘ex parte’ are used. Generally, even if someone applies for a ‘without notice’ injunction, they should at least let the other side know that’s what they are doing; unless ‘tipping off’ the other side would defeat the object of the injunction, or there’s no way of knowing how to communicate with them. That’s often the case with protestors, who will then be described in the application as 'persons unknown'. If an application is made without notice, the person seeking the injunction has a duty to bring to the court’s attention any arguments, whether of fact or law, that the other side could make if they were there. If an interim injunction is granted without the other side being present, then a hearing will be listed at the earliest opportunity for the other side to attend and have their say on whether the injunction should stay in place; either in whole, or with variations. Breach of an injunction is a contempt of court that can be punished with a fine or by being committed to prison. One thing to note about injunctions is that they are what is called an 'equitable remedy'. That means, unlike the usual legal remedies, which are available to anyone, regardless of their character, a person seeking an injunction must come to the court 'with clean hands'. That means a party that has engaged in disreputable conduct might not be granted an injunction, even if the merits of the case otherwise were in their favour. 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 Joe Wills will look into the topic of personhood. One of the law’s most fundamental divides is between the human and nonhuman. If you are human, you have basic rights to life, to liberty, to freedom from torture and inhuman treatment, to non-discrimination, to freedom from enslavement, to a family life and so on. Of course, violations of these rights are frequent, but they exist as de jure rights under international, constitutional, customary and common law. By contrast, it is entirely consistent with nearly every legal system on the planet to kill, mutilate, confine, poison, dissect, drug, artificially inseminate, isolate, trap, hunt, abduct, experiment on, exterminate and, put bluntly, enslave and torture nonhuman animals in the pursuit of a wide variety of trivial human goals. Of course, there is legislation that purportedly protects animals, but these laws, when examined in their totality, are more significant in terms of the huge amount of violence they explicitly or implicitly sanction than the more peripheral forms of cruelty they outlaw. A case in point is the recently passed US Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act (PACT), which makes it a federal crime to purposefully crush, burn, drown, suffocate, impale or otherwise inflict serious bodily injury on animals. Leaving aside the fact that PACT doesn’t prohibit killing or inflicting ‘non-serious’ bodily injury, it sounds relatively promising, right? Well, yes, until you read the small print. The act does not apply to conduct that involves, amongst other things, ‘a customary and normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry or other animal management practice’, ‘the slaughter of animals for food’, ‘hunting, trapping, fishing… predator control, or pest control’, or ‘medical or scientific research’. In short, PACT carves out exceptions so large you could drive a tank through them, leaving the vast majority of instances of violence against animals legally unchallenged. While there are other examples of animal protection legislation that do not sanction violence against animals in the blatant way that PACT does, most follow the same basic structure: they either protect a very narrow range of animal interests or allow for protected animal interests to be easily overridden when they interfere with human goals. Scholars and practitioners working in the field of animal law are seeking to challenge this anthropocentric and speciesist legal order and to reform the law so that the interests of animals are more adequately protected. One way in which they seek to do this is by broadening and strengthening existing animal protection laws. While this has undeniably been, and continues to be, an important strategy, it also has a significant limitation from an anti-speciesist standpoint: it does not challenge the apartheid structure of the law, which grants robust fundamental rights to human beings and a comparably far weaker protection regime for animals. Even if new animal welfare laws could more closely approximate human rights protections, as long as animals remain legally ghettoised and viewed as separate and inferior, there will always be strong pressures to downgrade their levels of protection. Where animals have relevantly similar interests to humans – for example their interest in avoiding the infliction of bodily injury - there is no reason why they oughtn’t be protected under the same legal framework. Obviously, moving nonhuman animals into the same paradigm of legal protection as humans is no mean feat. This is where strategies to get animals recognised as ‘legal persons’ comes in. In common parlance, ‘person’ is often taken to be synonymous with ‘human’ but in law the term has a more expansive meaning. It has long been recognised that entities as diverse as corporations , ships , states and religious texts , buildings and idols can be recognised for various purposes as ‘persons’ in the law. Recently, natural entities such as rivers and mountains have been granted legal personhood in some jurisdictions, and more recently still, this category has started to be applied by Courts to nonhuman animals too. Animal legal personhood In 2015, an Argentinian Court declared an orangutan called Sandra to be una persona no humana or ‘a non-human person’, finding her captivity in Buenos Aires Zoo to be an unlawful detention. The following year, a similar judgment was issued in relation to a chimpanzee called Cecilia who was being held at Mendoza Zoo. Both great apes have subsequently been relocated to sanctuaries. In 2017, a court in Colombia found a spectacled bear called Chucho to have ‘juridical personhood’ entitling him to be relocated to ‘full and decent semi-captivity conditions’ conducive to his wellbeing. This ruling was subsequently reversed and is currently being adjudicated before the Colombian Constitutional Court. In 2018 and 2019 two different Indian High Courts ruled that the ‘entire animal kingdom’ were legal persons (more on this below). Finally, efforts are presently afoot in Argentina to have endangered jaguars recognised as legal persons. A group that has played a central role in developing animal legal personhood strategies is the US-based Nonhuman Rights Project (NhRP) who, since 2013, have filed lawsuits on behalf of four chimpanzees and four elephants, seeking to release them from the facilities where they are detained. While as-of-yet no courts have recognised any of the NhRP’s clients as legal persons for the purpose of their lawsuits, there has undoubtedly been a shift in the nature of judicial discourse on animals. A sympathetic judgment from Fahey J of State of New York Court of Appeal in 2018 stressed the need for serious deliberation about the legal status of animals, stating that ‘we should consider whether a chimpanzee is an individual with inherent value who has the right to be treated with respect’. A month later, the New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division declared that ‘it is common knowledge that personhood can and sometimes does attach to nonhuman entities like… animals.’ A subsequent New York criminal court dealing with an animal cruelty case further noted ‘an emerging awareness of the injustice of treating animals as 'things', and present efforts to change the status of nonhuman animals from 'things' to legally recognised 'persons'. These rulings are indicative of the beginnings of a shift in judicial culture; claims of animal legal personhood are no longer automatically greeted with glib dismissals as they were in the recent past. Which animals ought to be legal persons? From this brief survey, we notice that animal legal personhood strategies have taken a variety of forms. A central tactical consideration for such campaigns is which species of animal ought to be advocated for, and why? The NhRP are at present litigating on behalf of ‘self-aware, autonomous beings’ on the basis that such individuals have liberty interests of the sort protected at common law. At present, they are limiting their potential clients to great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales living in capacity across the US. The two successful rulings from Argentina both involved captive great apes. Meanwhile, the ongoing spectacled bear and jaguar cases seem closely tied to the imperatives of species and environmental preservation. At the most expansive end of the spectrum, the two High Court rulings in India declared the entire animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic species, to be legal persons. In his 2019 ruling for the Chandigarh High Court, Justice Rajiv Sharma stated that citizens are loco parentis for the welfare and protection of animals, implying that they have legal responsibilities and functions similar to the legal guardians of children. Beneath the rhetoric, however, the judgment’s prescriptions do not appear to exceed those of traditional animal welfare adjudication. The judgment confirmed that animals should not carry loads exceeding prescribed limits and applied existing rules around veterinary care, housing and food for animals. While this outcome is admirable and the ruling itself a stirring defence of animals, I’d suggest that Justice Rajiv Sharma's invocation of ‘personhood’ may have been unnecessary, and runs the risk of draining the concept of its potential emancipatory force. When it comes to legal personhood, it may well be preferable, under present conditions, to pursue a strategy of advancing it for a narrow range of species, rather than the entire animal kingdom as the Indian High Courts have done. This is not because only a narrow range of species are morally deserving of much better legal protection (I happen to think that all sentient beings are entitled to fundamental legal rights) but rather because, under present conditions, affording human-like rights to all sentient creatures by judicial decree is unfeasible. Courts are not realistically in a position to issue rulings with implications that would likely be the termination of multi-billion dollar industries. The upshot of this is that when animal legal personhood is interpreted as applying very broadly, the transformative features of the concept risk getting watered down. Whereas the Argentinian Courts’ habeas corpus rulings on personhood for great apes secured liberation from human exploitation, the Indian Courts’ judgments were more closely tied to placing limits on human exploitation, i.e. the historic mission of animal welfare law. This is not to dismiss the importance of the latter, merely to suggest that there may be utility in a clear division of labour between welfarist and personhood legal strategies so as to preserve the benefits of each. Legal personhood strategies can be classified as ‘deep and narrow’ in so far as they have the potential to radically alter the legal status of animals but feasibly only apply to a small number. Animal welfare strategies, by contrast, can apply to a broad range of species but tend to offer relatively meagre limitations on human violence against animals. While personhood and welfare strategies are sometimes viewed as oppositional approaches, they are perhaps better thought of as complementary, each making up for the weaknesses of the other. Animal legal personhood ought to be seen as an important component of the panoply of campaigns to advance the legal status of animals. Potentially its most significant contribution is challenging the sanctity of the species divide that has hitherto consigned the entire non-human animal kingdom to the law’s wastelands. 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 .

Animal rights activism often involves exposing wrongdoing and malpractice, but what can a person do if they find out their employer; or just someone they know of through work, is the one committing the wrong? ‘Whistleblowing’ is sometimes the only way such information can be brought into the public domain or even to the attention of a relevant authority with the power to remedy the situation. With the usual caveat that a post like this can never be a substitute for individual legal advice, guest writer and barrister Alan Robertshaw will briefly examine the law pertaining to whistleblowing. Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 The Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, often referred to as PIDA, provides some measure of protection for whistleblowers. It applies to ‘workers’; and workers is defined quite broadly. It would apply to agency staff for example. The act states that no one should suffer a ‘detriment’ as a consequence of making a protected disclosure. Detriment is any form of negative treatment; from being fired to just being ostracised. People who do suffer a detriment are able to bring a claim under the Employment Rights Act. This permits a range of remedies, from reinstatement to financial compensation. What is a protected disclosure? There needs to be a 'disclosure' within the meaning of the act; It must be a 'qualifying disclosure'; The disclosure must be made to a particular type of person or organisation. What is a qualifying disclosure? that a criminal offence has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, that a person has failed, is failing or is likely to fail to comply with any legal obligation to which he is subject, that a miscarriage of justice has occurred, is occurring or is likely to occur, that the health or safety of any individual has been, is being or is likely to be endangered, that the environment has been, is being or is likely to be damaged, or that information tending to show any matter falling within any one of the preceding paragraphs has been, is being or is likely to be deliberately concealed. Legality or morality? The act seems to be concerned with criminal wrongdoing. However, tribunals do seem to be becoming more receptive to the idea that moral or ethical failures could also be the subject of a qualifying disclosure. 'Serious failure' The act permits disclosure where there is a risk of 'exceptionally serious failure'. What amounts to such is dealt with on a case by case basis. Generally, though, any disclosure that is in the general public interest (which is not the same as ‘of interest to the public) will be protected so long as the person does not make the disclosure for personal gain. Whom is told will be a relevant factor. A disclosure to the police or a regulator may be warranted, where a tip-off to the press would not. Permissible recipients Generally, disclosure must be made to one of the following types of people or organisations: Employer or Other Reasonable person Employer includes anyone senior to the person disclosing, or any other person nominated by the employer. This could include a Health and Safety Representative, or a Union official. Where the wrongdoing is the responsibility of the employer, disclosure is permitted to an appropriate third party; such as an auditor or even a former director of the company, for example. Government Minister or Member of Parliament Prescribed persons There is a list of permissible recipients here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/blowing-the-whistle-list-of-prescribed-people-and-bodies--2/whistleblowing-list-of-prescribed-people-and-bodies Other organisations If a disclosure has been made to one of the above and no remedial action has been taken, or the person making the disclosure reasonably believes they would suffer a detriment for doing so; then they may make the disclosure to some other organisation or person; so long as they do not do so for personal gain. Facts, not opinion The disclosure must relate to a factual situation. Merely expressing a negative opinion as to the conduct of the employer would not be protected. Allegations can be information The wrongdoing need not be established or proven. A person who reported that there was a rumour at work that the company was involved in dangerous practices might be protected, even if it transpired that the rumour wasn’t true. Reasonable belief The person making a disclose of a criminal activity need not specify exactly which law is being broken. A general layperson’s assessment of the activity would be enough. The protection also applies where a person reasonably believes an activity amounts to a crime; even if the activity is not actually an offence in law. Method It is only the disclosure that is protected; not the way the information was obtained. So, if the information was obtained illegally, or even in breach of an employment contract, it might not be unlawful to take disciplinary action over that. Good faith There is no longer a requirement that the disclosure be made in good faith. A disgruntled employee who made the disclosure just to cause trouble for their bosses would still be protected. Any award of damages, though, could be adjusted to take into account the motivation behind the disclosure. Third parties The wrongdoing need not be by the employer. Disclosures relating to third parties, such as suppliers or subcontractors, are also protected. NDAs It will not be a breach of a non-disclosure agreement to make a protected disclosure, and any clause seeking to prohibit this would be invalid and unenforceable. Detriment 'Detriment' is widely defined. It is not limited to dismissal. Any negative consequences would count. A claim can also be brought against any co-worker of agent or the employer who subjects the person to a detriment. Common law public interest defence The act applies to a wide variety of workers. Some people, however, are excluded from its protections. They include police officers and people working in the intelligence and security services. There is, however, a common law public interest defence to ‘whistleblowing’. Further, people have Article 10 rights under the European Convention of Human Rights to free speech. It is a breach of Article 14 of the convention to treat people differently merely because of ‘status’. Thus, recently, a judge was able to bring a successful whistleblowing claim, despite being an ‘office holder’ rather than a worker as defined by the act. It would be interesting to see if other normally excluded persons could derive protection under the same principles; such as government employees in sensitive positions. 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 .

Successful criminal prosecutions can shut down abusive farms or cruel hunts and reclaim thousands from unlicensed breeders, poachers or wildlife traders. In this blog, Advocates for Animals paralegal Sam March will outline what the process is for bringing one yourself. Why prosecute privately? The criminal law imposes hard limits on how people can treat animals. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 outlaws specific behaviours such as animal fighting, and generally makes it illegal to cause 'unnecessary suffering' to domesticated or captive animals. Because the law considers domestic animals to be 'property,' animal offenders may sometimes be tried for property crimes such as criminal damage or theft. Wild animals are also protected by various general and species-specific statutes; these seek to prevent crimes like poaching, disturbing wild birds, persecuting badgers, holding salmon 'in suspicious circumstances', trapping wild animals illegally, ill-treating them or illegally importing or exporting endangered species. This is an ever-growing area of law. Last year, Parliament criminalised the use of wild animals in travelling circuses, and just this month the government introduced landmark new legislation to tackle the low-welfare, high-volume kitten and puppy farms by banning commercial third-party sales. By criminalising these behaviours, society hopes to deter potential offenders; but the criminal law only works as an effective deterrent when there is a real risk of being caught and convicted. The general approach to criminal law enforcement in England and Wales is that the police investigate and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) prosecutes. Unfortunately, these public authorities have limited resources: in 2018 the BBC reported that less than one in ten crimes led to anyone actually being charged. This is bad news for animals and their advocates. Animal crime is simply not the primary mandate of police or the CPS. To take just one example, only one in 100 dog theft cases last year resulted in the thief being charged and prosecuted, according to figures obtained under Freedom of Information laws. Wild animals fare little better: of 1,300 reported crimes involving bats, marine mammals, badgers and raptors in 2016 , only 22 were successfully prosecuted. Many people consider that we have a moral duty to protect the animals in our care and the wildlife that surrounds us from cruelty and neglect. In an ideal world, we could count on the state alone to provide this protection. Unfortunately, it is not always the state’s top priority, so it can fall to private players to fill the justice gap. Who can prosecute privately? More or less anyone can commence a private prosecution. Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1995 enshrines the right of all private individuals, organisations and bodies to institute and conduct prosecutions. This includes non-profit organisations and even charities, who may use criminal prosecutions to further their charitable objectives, so long as they retain their sense of fairness, balance and impartiality. For animal charities and advocates, there can be many advantages to bringing private prosecutions: these include choosing specialist lawyers, investigators and forensic experts who can secure higher success rates than more generalist crown prosecutors. Some organisations regularly prosecute in this capacity, the RSPCA being an obvious example. In 2019, through private prosecutions, it secured 1,432 convictions relating to animal welfare offences, with a 93.7% success rate. However, the RSPCA operates in a delicate and controversial political landscape and has been encouraged to step back from acting as a prosecutor of first resort. This risks leaving animals unprotected: in 2016 an Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee found that the CPS is not 'suitably resourced and trained in the area of animal welfare' to take over the RSPCA’s work load. With this in mind, other animal advocates may need to step up to the plate. What is the process? The preliminaries to private prosecution can be thought of as a three step process: the investigation; the charging decision; and 'laying an information'. Investigation Impartial, fair investigation is elementary; it is impossible to bring a successful prosecution without evidence. There is a high burden of proof in criminal cases, and it rests with the prosecutor. Gathering evidence lawfully and impartially can be tricky in private prosecutions because the prosecutor cannot necessarily count on the police. Instead, evidence may need to be gathered by investigators and experts. There are strict rules of 'admissibility' and 'disclosure', so unless expert legal advice is sought early, there is a real risk that the evidence gathered cannot actually be used in court. Charge Once the evidence is gathered, the private prosecutor needs to face a serious and difficult decision: whether to charge and what charge to bring? It is inadvisable to bring a prosecution unless there is sufficient evidence against each suspect on each charge and unless it is required in the public interest. Unless expert advice is sought at this stage, the case risks being struck out or taken over and discontinued by the CPS before it even gets to trial. 'Laying an information' This is where the prosecution formally begins. Anyone can try to bring a private prosecution against anyone, but getting a foot in the door means getting a 'summons' or 'warrant' from the magistrates. This is the document which will require the defendant to answer the charge and ultimately attend trial. This is done by laying an 'information', a document setting out what the case is about, the factual background and the relevant law. If this is laid properly, the magistrates will generally issue the summons/warrant…and then the litigation really begins, proceeding much like a usual criminal trial. Who pays for all this? It is important to carefully consider the cost implications of bringing a private prosecution. The person or charity bringing the prosecution will need to fund it, but the good news is that generally a convicted defendant must pay at least a contribution to the prosecutor’s costs if not the whole sum; and that can include the costs of any investigation. If a defendant is acquitted then they can claim back costs. Normally in a criminal prosecution this is from ‘central funds’; that is to say the government. There can be cases where a successful defendant can claim costs from the prosecutor. That is when the charge arises by way of ‘complaint’ rather than ‘information’; although that is unlikely to be the case in most animal law offences. However, courts can also award costs against a prosecutor where the decision to instigate a private prosecution was an 'improper act' within the meaning of s.19, of Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (see Evans v Serious Fraud Office [2015] EWHC 263 (QB) and R. v Cornish (Errol) [2016] EWHC 779 (QB)) . That is, however, unlikely to be the case where a prosecutor acts in good faith. So worries about costs should not necessarily deter a person or organisation with a strong case from holding animal abusers to account. It is important to take legal advice early though; an improper or mismanaged prosecution can backfire, leaving the prosecutor paying both their own costs and the defendant’s. 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 .

Access to justice is a cornerstone of any fair and civilised society. It ensures that rights are not merely theoretical, but enforceable; that harm can be redressed; and that the vulnerable are protected against abuse. Yet one group remains conspicuously excluded from meaningful legal protection: animals. Despite being sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, fear, joy, and distress, animals are still largely treated as property under the law. This legal classification often strips them of the protections afforded to others in society, leaving them voiceless in systems designed for those who can speak for themselves. Recognising animals’ entitlement to justice is not only a moral imperative, it is a legal and societal necessity. The moral imperative of justice for animals Animals, from companion animals to farmed and wild species, are capable of suffering. Modern science has confirmed what many have intuited for centuries: animals are sentient. This basic fact makes the denial of justice to animals ethically indefensible. When humans harm other humans, legal systems step in. When humans harm animals, whether through neglect, cruelty, or exploitation, the response is often inconsistent, under-resourced, or absent altogether. Justice requires more than sentiment. It requires enforceable rights and meaningful consequences for violations. If animals are to be truly protected, they must be visible to the law, not merely as objects of concern but as beings with interests that deserve representation and remedy. The enforcement problem: Laws without teeth The UK, along with many countries, has animal welfare statutes on the books. These laws acknowledge animals’ need for protection from cruelty and neglect. However, enforcement remains an enormous challenge. Often, such laws are underutilised or applied selectively, and prosecutions are rare. This reveals a stark gap between the laws as written and the lived reality for animals. Without consistent enforcement, legal protections are symbolic at best. For justice to function, there must be mechanisms to monitor compliance, investigate harm, and bring offenders to account. Access to justice for animals requires that these mechanisms be resourced, professionalised, and applied with the same seriousness as human-related crimes. You can find out more about The Enforcement Problem and data on the scale of the issue here. A role for the legal system: Representation and reform Because animals cannot speak or act for themselves in court, they depend on human intermediaries to seek justice on their behalf. This introduces a crucial concept: legal representation for animals. Whether through organisations, public prosecutors, or designated guardians, there must be actors within the legal system whose role is to advance the interests of animals. Incorporating animals into the justice system involves recognising their unique status as sentient beings whose interests matter morally and legally. Legal systems can evolve to include such principles, just as they have evolved to recognise the rights of children, nature, and future generations. Why professionalisation matters Treating animal law as a professional legal discipline, rather than a passion project or moral sideline, is key to securing justice for animals. Professionalisation brings consistency, credibility, and long-term impact. It allows legal practitioners to specialise, advocate strategically, and bring about systemic change. Access to justice for animals is not merely about stopping individual acts of cruelty. It is about challenging the structural and institutional factors that allow harm to persist. This includes practices in farming, entertainment, science, and trade that operate with impunity due to the animals’ legal invisibility. Conclusion: A justice system worthy of the name A just society is measured by how it treats its most vulnerable. Animals, as sentient beings without a voice, fall squarely into this category. Extending access to justice to animals is not an act of benevolence, it is an act of legal consistency. It acknowledges that animals have interests worthy of protection, and that harm against them must not be tolerated or ignored. Animals deserve not just our compassion, but our justice. 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 .

Today, on the United Nations ' World Bee Day ', Sam March considers the extent to which the law protects these crucial pollinators in England and Wales. Our ecosystems, food security and survival all depend on bees. According to the United Nations , nearly 90% of the world’s wild flowering plant species depend entirely, or at least in part, on animal pollination, as do more than 75% of the world’s food crops and 35% of global agricultural land. According to Friends of the Earth the UK has lost 13 species of bee since 1900, and a further 35 are considered under threat of extinction. Considering their vital importance and falling numbers, it is sometimes supposed, as in this BBC article , that bees are protected by law. However, the truth behind this supposition is limited. Do our animal welfare laws protect bees? There are an estimated 274,000 honey bee hives in the UK; the majority of these hives are kept by approximately 44,000 amateur keepers. At the height of summer there is an average of 35-40,000 bees in the hive, meaning there can be billions of bees under human control at a given time. The legislation that is usually considered to protect animals under the control of man is the Animal Welfare Act 2006 . Amongst other things, the act makes it illegal to cause 'unnecessary suffering' to 'protected animals.' However, the act defines an 'animal' as 'a vertebrate other than man'. This means due to their lack of backbone and central nervous system, bees are afforded no protection under the act. Nor is their situation any better under the EU law, as Council Directive 98/58/EC explicitly excludes 'any invertebrate animal.' This is not an abnormal position, according to a recent study by Lukas Jasiunas , the welfare laws of most countries do not take insects into consideration. This is partly due to differing perspectives on whether insects have intrinsic moral value and the extent to which they are conscious or sentient. There are those who suggest bees do suffer and others who appear to suggest they do not . These are matters still to be resolved by scientists and philosophers. How about our wildlife protection laws? Many wildlife animals, including a number of insect species, are afforded a degree of protection under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 . However, only those animals mentioned in certain schedules are protected, and none currently contain any bee species. As for species-specific legislation, the Bees Act 1980 empowers Ministers to draw up Orders 'for the purpose of preventing the introduction into or spreading within Great Britain of pests or diseases affecting bees.' Under this act, the relevant ministers have issued The Bee Diseases and Pests Control Orders 2006 for England and Wales ( as amended ). Whilst these seek to protect bee populations generally from the introduction of new pests or diseases, they do not protect particular species or individual bees from destruction or maltreatment. So can I kill bees? In short, there are no laws that directly prevent people from maltreating or killing bees in England and Wales. Nevertheless, even pest controllers will do the utmost to avoid exterminating them 'unless there's a serious threat to human life'. The British Pest Control Association recommends always exploring all other avenues before considering eradication. If at all possible, the BPCA recommends leaving bee nests alone to thrive. Alternatively, they recommend using a swarm collector from the British Bee Keepers Association or getting in touch with the Tree Bee Society , who will normally collect the swarm free of charge. What other laws affect bees and those who work with them? The fact that bees can be legally killed does not mean that those working with them operate in a legislative vacuum. Pest control measures are subject to legislation pertaining to food and environmental protection, health and safety, and the use of hazardous substances, pesticides and biocidal products. So, whilst a person cannot be prosecuted for killing bees per se, prosecutions can be brought against those who, for instance, do so using the wrong chemicals. Furthermore, beekeepers and those in the honey business are subject to a wide variety of legislation and regulations pertaining to honey specifically and more generally to food labelling, food safety, food and environmental protection, and veterinary medicine. 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 .

After three years since Advocates for Animals launched, Edie takes the opportunity to reflect on what we have learnt and why continued professionalisation in this area is so important. Current landscape Animal welfare has been a part of public discourse for a significant period of time, with impressive wins along the way. However, it is undeniable that the conversation of animal welfare and rights has grown louder in the past few years with ever growing public interest. The catalyst for this is not one thing, but more of a collection of things coming together to form the fertile ground for the discussion to grow. Such factors include the birth of the internet, an increasingly educated public and, most optimistically, an evolving collective conscience and consciousness. Undoubtedly, the increasing sophistication of animal groups has also played a significant role in this development. The activities of a standard animal group include campaigning, lobbying, outreach, undercover investigations, fundraising, and generally holding industry and government to account. Groups conduct all of these activities at an extremely high level and have been seen to reap the rewards, such as changes of law, changes in public opinion and, most importantly, changes in behaviour. How the law adds value As animal protection groups become increasingly sophisticated and undertake the above activities, it would be counterproductive to use anything other than professional and expert legal services. As a professional service, we have helped ensure undercover investigations are as watertight as possible, ensured campaign materials and activities are compliant with the law and provided thorough information and insights into animal laws. Through this guidance we have helped animal protection groups determine the direction of numerous campaigns. We’ve also used numerous channels to ensure wrongdoers and regulators are held to account and started to litigate against some of the worst systems animals are forced to endure. All of these activities have helped level the playing field, which is so often in favour of industry. Why it is important to ensure animal law is professional Prior to Advocates for Animals there were some firms that did some animal law; however, this was largely inaccessible to most groups and activists with limited funds. Other than that animal law was a volunteer-led practice area and still is in many countries. Volunteer support is important and we have been grateful to receive it (and have all spent our fair share doing it). However, it is only by establishing animal law as a professional area of law that animals can start to get their legal protections adequately enforced, whether that be through litigation or simply through providing expert and timely guidance; as would be the case in any area of law that affects humans. In areas that affect humans, it is professional and specialist lawyers you encounter, from property transactions and family disputes through to defending and prosecuting potential criminal activity and ensuring human rights are protected. It is an injustice that for so long animals have not had their legal protections covered in the same way. Even if animal legal protections exist on paper, can they be called law if they are not adequately considered or enforced? Having a professional area of animal law means time and expertise are made available to focus solely on the task of upholding animal legal protections, which, in turn, means an unparalleled depth of knowledge is being accumulated. It also means sustainable infrastructure is being built to ensure a continuity of the practice of animal law. None of this would have been possible if the practice area remained volunteer-led, as, unavoidably, animal law would be picked up and put down as and when other commitments dictate. It would also have meant a lack of honed expertise, time, resources and commitment, and a lack of status for animal legal protections. Finally, it is symbolically powerful to have a law firm highlighting that animal legal protections do matter. One could argue that animal law is not one field, but spans many, e.g. public, criminal, civil etc. However, whilst it is true that animal law spans many areas, it is our experience that without a firm solely dedicated to animal law, it remains a very small part of someone’s wider practice without sufficient expertise being developed towards the animal aspects of the law, which is only possible if fully specialised on this area. Our role At Advocates for Animals we work with a range of clients from NGOs and activists to individuals who just want to ensure justice for animals. Our work with these clients is extremely broad due to the nature of the field, which means we are more akin to highly specialised in house lawyers responding to all our clients needs; from proofing their campaign materials through to assessing legal opportunities to meet their campaigning objectives, this may involve possible prosecutions, judicial reviews, advising on undercover investigations and more. The role we take on serves the animal protection community, as it means that not only are we providing expert legal advice, but we understand the other considerations at play when it comes to our clients activities and their appetite for risk and impact. The highlights Since our launch we have received ongoing instructions from most of the well known animal groups and some smaller, but still effective, ones. We have advised on areas that have informed powerful campaigns, been involved in cases that have directly saved animals and worked on projects both in the UK and overseas. We have also spoken on animal law issues in the UK Parliament, the French Senat and the East African Legislative Assembly, and been grateful for positive media coverage. As we go forward we hope to continue to provide professional legal assistance on some much needed work and continue to build the much needed infrastructure to ensure legal services remain sustainable and efficient. Advocates for Animals’ sole goal is to ensure it provides the best service possible to help animal groups, activists and animals now and in the future. 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 .

Complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority can be an effective way for animal advocates to hold animal industries to account. However, standards cut both ways, so animal protection campaigners or cruelty-free companies, particularly those who make bold or controversial claims in their adverts, risk finding themselves on the defensive. In this blog, Advocates for Animals paralegal, Sam March, and food science and legal blogger, Imogen Allen, provide a brief introduction to advertising standards and discuss cases that have made headlines in recent years. What are advertising standards? In order to protect consumers, people advertising products cannot just say whatever they like about the things they are selling. Marketing communications are regulated by a patchwork of 'hard' law and 'soft' law. Advertising content can have implications in contract law, and fraudulent statements can give rise to tortious or even criminal matters. Much of the blackletter law underpinning advertising standards can be found in the provisions of regulations such as The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1277) ( CPUT ) or The Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1276) ( BPR ) . These regulations impose binding legal duties and sanctions that can be enforced by statutory regulators, such as Ofcom (for broadcast communications) or Trading Standards (for non-broadcast advertising). In reality, however, the first course of action for anyone concerned about the content of an advert will generally be to complain to the Advertising Standards Authority ( ASA ). Advertising standards complaints are sometimes called a form of 'soft' law. This is because, unlike Ofcom or Trading Standards, the ASA is a 'self-regulatory' body – meaning the industry has voluntarily established and paid for its own regulation. The ASA applies the provisions of two self-regulatory industry codes, written and issued by the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). These are The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing ( CAP Code ) and The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising ( BCAP Code ) . The advertising standards system in the UK, therefore, blurs the lines between state regulation and self-regulation. Although the ASA is technically an industry-led body, it operates closely with the state regulators and can, if necessary, refer cases to them. The system has been described as 'self-regulation within a co-regulatory framework.' Who can complain and what can they complain about? The general public, competitors, or other groups with an obvious interest (such as campaigning organisations) can lodge complaints with the ASA. Despite being industry-led, the ASA’s codes and rulings are not something that advertisers can opt-out of; this means that any advert within the ASA’s remit can potentially be the subject of a complaint. This remit is broad, and includes adverts in the press, on radio, TV, cinema, digital platforms, posters, billboards, leaflets, brochures and even direct mail, email and text messages. It should be noted, however, that the ASA is not the appropriate body for complaining about editorial content, fly posting, some types of medical advertising, or political advertising where the purpose of the ad is to persuade voters in a local, national or international electoral referendum. For in-store advertising or shop window displays, the situation is complicated and will often need to be reported to Trading Standards, although the ASA can look into complaints where leaflets in store are handed out to be taken away, or sales promotions appear in the window. The types of things that can be complained about also vary and there are differences between the rules for broadcast and non-broadcast advertising. In general terms, the sorts of things that can be complained about include, inter alia, adverts that are misleading (or likely to be), adverts that cause serious or widespread offence, adverts that cause excess distress without justifiable reason, and adverts that cause harm in other ways (including for instance, TV ads that harm animals in their production.) What powers does the ASA have? The ASA is not a court, and so does not have the same powers as a court would to grant remedies or enforce sanctions. Nevertheless, if the ASA finds that the rules have been broken, it can declare that the advert must be withdrawn or amended. Most advertisers will quickly comply. Where an advert is broadcast, it will be a term of the broadcaster’s licence that it complies with ASA rulings at the risk of being referred by the ASA to Ofcom. For non-broadcast adverts, the CAP can issue 'Ad Alerts' to members, such as Royal Mail, who could, in turn, withdraw its bulk mail discount. Similarly, the ASA can ask paid search websites to remove adverts or refer Video-On-Demand providers to Ofcom. One of the most effective sanctions, and a real incentive to campaigning groups seeking to use advertising standards to hold industry to account and raise awareness, is the adverse publicity that marketers risk when they break the rules. The ASA website has a section dedicated to breaches of the rules and will publish the name of the advertiser and the details of the breach: these are often picked up by the news, or appear high up in search engine results when the advertiser’s name or product is searched. How difficult is it to make a complaint? Making a complaint is not like bringing a court case. Someone with a potentially meritorious complaint need not necessarily be deterred by the same evidential issues, cost or resource concerns that sometimes apply when considering litigation. One significant advantage is that the ASA complaints process partially reverses the burden of proof in some cases. Rather than the onus being on the person making the complaint to prove breaches, companies that make absolute statements about things such as animal welfare have to be able to produce evidence to back their claims up. For example, an advert which claimed that none of an advertiser’s cows suffered from mastitis was found to be misleading because the advertiser did not supply the ASA with evidence to substantiate the claim [ HaLove, 1 May 2013 ]. This means that if you have a reasonable suspicion that something is false or misleading, you can potentially complain successfully even if you do not have any evidence to substantiate it. Advertising standards complaints are also likely to be much cheaper than court cases because it does not cost anything to lodge a complaint. If the complaint makes it through the filtering process and is assessed favourably against the ASA’s prioritisation principles, then it will be the ASA who takes on responsibility for any investigations and puts the case to the ASA Council (an independent jury) for a final decision and ruling. It is possible to get through the whole process without paying a penny. Nevertheless, it may be wise to consult a lawyer to discuss the merits of your complaint so as to maximise the chances of it making it through the filtering process and to avoid the disappointment of having your complaint backfire, thus accidentally giving good publicity to the advertiser in question. How long does the process take? The ASA tries to resolve complaints as quickly as possible, but the time it takes to resolve a complaint can vary significantly depending on the merits and complexity of the matters in issue. For instance, unmeritorious or misdirected complaints may be resolved in a few days, whereas complex cases can take six months to complete. The ASA helpfully explains the 11 step process on their website. Why should animal advocates care? Many low-welfare animal industries are driven by profits and consumer demand. For instance, the profits associated with ever-increasing demand for cheap meat continues to drive the intensification of farming; the number of large industrial-sized pig and chicken farms in the UK continues to rise, with close to 2,000 currently across the country. It is not easy for businesses to reconcile this with the growing perception that farm animal welfare should be protected and improved or the fact that animal-friendly products are perceived to be healthier, safer, tastier, more hygienic, authentic, environmentally friendly, and traditional by many consumers. It is clear, therefore, that there is an incentive for advertisers to make positive claims, or give favourable impressions, about the welfare properties of animal products that could be false or misleading. As campaigning group Compassion in World Farming explains : 'it’s not in the interests of the government or the food industry for consumers to get wise to the miserable reality of much of today’s farming – after all, people might simply refuse to buy certain products.' ASA complaints are potentially a powerful tool that can be used by animal advocates to prevent companies from making misleading claims and to publicly name and shame false advertisers. In the case of ten recent complaints against BKUK Group Ltd t/a Burger King, 15 April 2020 , three adverts promoting the supposedly 'plant-based' 'Rebel Whopper' were considered to be misleading. This was because they gave the impression that a burger was suitable for vegetarians and vegans, despite containing mayonnaise and being cooked alongside animal products. In the case of Organic Trade Board t/a Why I Love Organic, 13 July 2011 , the ASA upheld complaints against an ad that suggested that organically farmed animals experienced better conditions than non-organically farmed animals. Although the advertiser provided evidence that showed organically farmed animals experienced high animal welfare conditions, the ASA did not consider that it showed that in all cases that organically farmed animals experienced better conditions than non-organically farmed animals. In the case of Waitrose Ltd, 20 October 2010 , the ASA upheld complaints against a press ad which described pigs as 'outdoor bred', because the pigs used to produce the product did not spend the duration of their lives outdoors. The ASA’s approach was to consider how the ‘average consumer’ would interpret an ad, so even though the advertiser argued that there was a technical distinction (in industry speak) between 'outdoor bred' and 'outdoor reared', the ASA considered that the average consumer would not be aware of this and would have considered the ad misleading. Animal products can also be the subject of successful complaints where they make claims about other issues, such as the environment. In Arla Foods Ltd 07 June 2017 , a claim that organic milk was 'good for the land' and 'help[ed] support a more sustainable future' was held to be misleading. The ASA did not consider that the respondent 'had substantiated that organic milk production had an overall positive impact on the environment, taking into account its full life cycle'. What about complaints against animal protection campaigners? Being on the losing side of a ruling can harm a campaign’s credibility, be humiliating for the advertiser, and provide fodder for their adversaries. So, Animal protection groups, particularly campaigning ones, need to be wary of the rules when considering what claims to make in their own content. For instance, the ASA upheld a complaint against People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation, 04 September 2019 last year, challenging the claim that 'wool is just as cruel as fur'. The ASA considered DEFRA’s Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock: Sheep . Based on the provisions of the code it held 'that the main method of obtaining wool from sheep by shearing would not be regarded by consumers as being cruel'. This does not mean that provocatory statements should necessarily be avoided at all costs. In fact, when a campaigning group is successful in seeing off a complaint, particularly where the message is provocatory, this can be a vindication of that campaign’s central message. Examples of this include the ASA Ruling on Eden Farmed Animal Sanctuary t/a Go Vegan World 26 July 2017 , in which an advert which included the central message 'Humane milk is a myth. Don’t buy it' was not found to breach the rules. It was of great value to the campaign that the ASA, an objective, mainstream body, found that it was not misleading to say that there is no such thing as humane milk. Findings such as this make their way into the press and spark important conversations on social media. 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 .