Amersham horses case and "pets"

[cariad]

With regard to the favourite topic of Mr J Gray, can anyone explain the following to me? I admit I haven't seen any of the newspaper reports on the case and as far as I can see, the hearings haven't (yet) been reported on Lawtel, if indeed they are going to be, so I haven't seen the actual wording of the judgments so far and if I had I may be enlightened.

As far as I am aware, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not make any distinction between "pet" animals and any other sort of animals, i.e. working animals, farm animals, animals bought for selling on, etc. The newly introduced positive duty of care applies to "protected" animals as defined in the Act, which is set out in s2 "animals of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands, under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis or not living in a wild state". Whether they are pets or animals waiting to be sold on doesn't seem to come into it. I do appreciate the difference in newspaper reports, which don't always get it technically correct and proper legal reporting, but this seems to have been widely reported.

Any ideas?

 

[Daffodil]

You're absolutely right. Given that time is running short, why not email Judge Skainth, on skainth@twclaw.co.uk to this effect. You seem to know a bit about the law and this is a vital point to make

 

[cariad]

I am a lawyer and moreover, one who does equine law and teaches animal protection law at a university, but I have been reluctant to become involved in all the debate without knowing precisely what the legal arguments were. I have not been able to obtain the actual legal arguments. I am not sure that petitioning the district judge will do any good, as he has to make his judgment according to law and cannot be swayed by petitions and strength of feeling. If he has misunderstood the law and misdirected himself, then that is a valid ground for appeal.

I do have other queries about the application of the Act in this case, but do not want to comment for fear of prejudicing any court case.

 

[Daffodil]

Yes, I know - I think that deep down that's what we're all afraid of. Still, the point you raise is very valid.
The fact that he is describing them as pets has nothing to do with it. They are domesticated animals which have not be looked after according to the law.

 

[EquineOnline]

Cariad you sound just the sort of person that SHOULD be contacting Judge Kainth with your very valid points. Please do so asap. It would be 'criminal' if you didn't.

 

[cariad]

Can't do it I'm afraid. It would not be professionally correct for me to be seen to be criticising a judge's decision, especially as I am not in possession of the full facts. I can understand why people want to make their feelings known, but the judge should not -and will not-allow himself to be swayed in any further decisions he comes to by anything other then legal arguments put before him by the representatives of the parties. Otherwise you get law making by public feeling rather than the proper procedures, which are there for a reason. Sorry if that seems a bit po-faced, but if we allowed decisions to be made by public sentiment alone, I suspect we'd be back to public hangings in some cases!

It's just that I am genuinely puzzled by some aspects of this case and it's either because I'm being particularly thick and/or haven't seen the full story, or it may be that this case is showing up some flaws in the working of the Act itself, which often happens when new laws are "tested" in the courts.

 

[EquineOnline]

"or it may be that this case is showing up some flaws in the working of the Act itself"

I think you have probably hit the nail on the head. Whatever evidence is presented (or not), it should not be possible to consider sending an aminal back to an owner who has been accused of it's cruelty until the case has been concluded. IMHO.

 

[cariad]

Well, that was my line of thinking. If charges not upheld, animal goes back. If they are, then animal ordered to be sold or whatever, but owner has a chance to make representations before being deprived of the animal, which is only fair. Trouble with that is that if the animal is in "care", so to speak, the body looking after it/them can ask for it's costs to be re-imbursed and if cases drag on as they do, then the costs mount, often through no fault of the owner. This is why I am puzzled here - welfare charges, but vet says no evidence of suffering, so can go back to the situation they were taken from......And doesn't that rather pre-empt any decision at trial -owner says can't be guilty of suffering charges, as vet has already returned animal to me as no evidence of suffering! I do appreciate that charges may relate to specific animals in any case and the returned horses here may not be related to any charges, but this is another reason for wanting to know the full story and see the transcripts if possible before commenting.