Efra committee report on animal welfare

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 18:00:07 GMT

I agree, other than for the accepted practice bit. Some things were accepted practice not that many years ago, docking is an example. If we didn't challenge accepted practice, things would never improve.

Other things that would have appalled people when I was a child, zero grazing systems, and unstunned meat being sold on the open market are unfortunately becoming the norm, so things can deteriorate as well as improve.

Wynne

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

David Mills — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:55:26 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="David Mills"]A shame there was no recommendation to make unnecessary suffering a strict liability offence, like a speeding ticket.[/quote]

That would be contrary to natural justice.

[/quote]

I don't think it is.

Suffering in a legal sense is an objective test.

The necessity part could be argued as mitigating (proportionate/ends-means/cost-benefit/accepted practice) - mens rea or subjective test.

It would shift the burden of proof in the animal's favour.

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 16:25:21 GMT

Not making it a strict liability offence is contrary to justice.

Wynne

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:54:36 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]A shame there was no recommendation to make unnecessary suffering a strict liability offence, like a speeding ticket.[/quote]

That would be contrary to natural justice.

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 18 Nov 2016 08:19:29 GMT

During the last 10 years the number of dairy cattle who have been prevented from expressing normal behaviour because they are kept permanently imprisoned has increased. The freedom to express normal behaviour is 1 of the 5 freedoms which are supposed to be enshrined in the AWA, but such is the rush to the bottom in order to provide cheap food that nothing is being done.

Wynne

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:34:38 GMT

[quote user="David Mills"]

This report was designed to mark the 10-year anniversary of the AWA 2006 - now which government brought this legislation?

[/quote]

Oh! don't get me started on if I think Labour governments were left-wing or simply financially incompetent...

[quote user="David Mills"]

There's a paradox at the heart of the recommendations.

On the one hand there is a strong case for the RSPCA to be given statutory authority. Hey, even some government funding. As such, it could become the the national authority for animal welfare. But there is also a call to stop it pursuing prosecutions despite its 92% success rate and years of experience (in fact there was a 50/50 split on the committee about this statement) and hand over everything to the CPS. Who are having their funding cut and have little/no experience in animal welfare law. The reason for the call is an apparent conflict of interest, even though the Wooler report into the RSPCA found that there were no issues with the independence of the prosecutions department compared to the rest of the organisation.

I think the reality is the status quo will continue. Local government and police are simply not set up for animal welfare work on the scale of what currently happens - there is normally 0-2 people responsible within a local government.

The breeders recommendations are rigorous and welcome. There will always be back street breeders who will slip through the net, but I think there will be a large deterrent aspect to setting up a register and enforcing licensing. Likewise, putting a 6 month minimum age on imports/PETs travel would discourage those shipping across from Eastern Europe - now it wouldn't be about checking passports but simply the size of the puppy.

The increase in the punishments for AWA offences - increasing fine levels and maximum custodial time to 5 years (currently 51 weeks) - and changing sentencing guidelines to recommend more custodial sentences (very rarely handed out currently) is a welcome change, as the punishments are currently woefully inadequate, especially when compared to other European countries.

Time will tell whether there's appetite for some of these recommendations to be implemented.

A shame there was no recommendation to make unnecessary suffering a strict liability offence, like a speeding ticket.

[/quote]

I agree...

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 18:29:36 GMT

Anybody has a legal right to bring a private prosecution. If the RSPCA didn't prosecute animal crime, who would. The police have a statutory duty but have abdicated this responsibility

Wynne

PS An increase in a maximum sentence to 5 years, and a greater willingness to impose custodial sentences would be welcome. I've done a lot of prosecution work as a professional witness for the RSPCA I've only once known a custodial sentence be imposed, although all the cases were harrowing. In that case, the accused was a notorious drug dealer, who was out on remission for a drug crime, so he was sent back tpo complete that sentence as well as having extra jail time added on for illtreating animals. The rather cynical comment of the RSPCA Inspector was "They would probably been glad to jail that one for dropping a sweet wrapper" OK that was an exaggeration, but since I've seen worse cases avoid imprisonment then I can't help feeling that the magistrates were motivated more by the desirability of keeping a drug dealer off the streets than by disgust at his cruelty.................very vert depressing

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

David Mills — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 17:39:50 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]The self-perpetuating right wing path of the current British society continues to keep low taxes at the expense of privatising (or like some people call it, liberalisating) of areas of public interest. Thus, leaving problem-solving up to whatever is reasonable profitable, so the private company or charity has no choice to but to act in some cases but not others.[/quote]

This report was designed to mark the 10-year anniversary of the AWA 2006 - now which government brought this legislation?

There's a paradox at the heart of the recommendations.

Time will tell whether there's appetite for some of these recommendations to be implemented.

A shame there was no recommendation to make unnecessary suffering a strict liability offence, like a speeding ticket.

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:58:31 GMT

"Now back to the real world ......."

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:54:12 GMT

We're too soft with criminals...................chuck them in a cell, don't give food or water until the fine is paid. If it's never paid, then they're criminals, so who cares. At least that way they'd be guaranteed to never offend again

Wynne

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 12:19:37 GMT

Fines are rarely paid by the scum involved in puppy farming/dealing. Massive fines will not work. Custodial sentences may work for some but as with drug dealing, this may well be seen as an occupational hazard, if not a badge of glory!

Even a ban on pet owning may not work as they just claim ownership is elsewhere!

Naming and shaming may work for a short time but a change of name, change of SIM card and a bit of time, all gets forgotten.

We have just lost a four day battle with a parvo puppy!

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:54:34 GMT

Francisco I'm with you on the necessity for the state to finance the policing of all crime, and commit sufficient resources to totally eradicate all crime. Policing is one of the very few things that I consider should be a state responsibility. I'd like expenditure on law and order to be increased 10 fold at least. Legally the police are responsible for detecting all crime, but they have willfully and wrongfully abdicated their responsibility where animal crime is concerned. The necessary funds can easily be obtained without increasing taxes................take it out of the stupendously bloated social security budget.

Bob I'm also with you in that punishments must be deterrant. I'd like the system of maximum fines to be replaced with minimum fines, set sufficiently high that no one would ever be daft enough to even dream of breaking them....................say £1million per puppy sold by an unlicensed breeder...................that would stop them even thinking about it.

Wynne

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Bob Russell — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:27:56 GMT

Two litters rule for licensing breeders has to be a winner and should be introduced ASAP. One litter may be an accident two or more is 'breeding'. The cost of licensing should be born by the breeder.

Anyone dealing in puppies ie buying and reselling must be licensed and pay for the privilege.

Penalties must include costs.

Puppy dealing has got completely out of hand and the loss to the tax system (VAT and Income Tax) must be very significant! Buy a puppy for £50, sell for £300, pay no tax because all cash in hand. Multiply by the number of GumTree puppies and the loss to the exchequer must be millions each year.

Any puppy under six months to require a full veterinary import certificate, no PETS passports for this vulnerable group.

RE: Efra committee report on animal welfare

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 17 Nov 2016 08:47:16 GMT

Well, you asked for it

I see the main problem spelt not in the 'Animal breeding' section, but in the policing section:

'28.A major weakness of the Animal Welfare Act is that no state organisation is statutorily responsible for animal welfare. It is unacceptable that in a modern society no state organisation is responsible for animal welfare.'

The self-perpetuating right wing path of the current British society continues to keep low taxes at the expense of privatising (or like some people call it, liberalisating) of areas of public interest. Thus, leaving problem-solving up to whatever is reasonable profitable, so the private company or charity has no choice to but to act in some cases but not others. It is probably easy for many, to work out what they can or can't do based on what is seen worth of prosecution.

No matter how many breeder recommendations you provide if the policing and awarness is left to what a charity can do without government support. It is one of the areas where the government can wash their hands IMO...

... but I'm sure you can tell me where I'm wrong coz I work in a private practice and my dealings and understandings of animal charities, even tho exist, they might not be as good as yours.