Animal Cruelty v Welfare Flashcards
Intro
- Both central to protection of animals
- Important part of human culture since enlightenment
- Similar but different origin, run alongside
- Cruelty offence
- Welfare concept
Legal concept v Scientific
- Cruelty used in legislation but not defined itself rather concept of UNS used
- Used in Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) 2006 Act but origin from way before
- 1911/1912 Protection of Animals Act (Consolidated what already existed) S1(1) (A) any person, cruelly beat etc (originates Martin’s Bill) or wantonly, unreasonably or omitting cause UNS (RSPCA Wild Animals in Captivity Act 1900 UNS)
- Mean same thing in 1925 case cruelly could not be better defined than causing UNS
- Three part test - Suffering (determined on evidence given, experts, can be mental and physical, amount not taken into account nor how long, beyond reasonable doubt, killed straight away no suffering)
Necessity - Ford v Wiley Horns sawn off, economic reasons mainly, lost case. Two part test - ‘adequate and reasonable object’
‘ proportion between the object and means’
Mens rea - Subjective, Objective and Strict Liability
Cruelty objective test, reasonable person 1889 - Intention of the respondent doesnt matter
2006 different test - Hall - Did it suffer? Was it necessary in sense of being inevitable and would reasonable competent and humane tolerate it? and Issacs - Did they suffer? Was it inevitable, could not be terminated or alleviated anyway? Would caring, reasonably competent owner do this? - Welfare scientific and spectrum from good to bad
- Much more modern 1960s, came from factory farming, Animal Machines by Ruth Harrison
- Committee set up to deal with it, Brambell committee produced report
- Brambell Report examined conditions livestock living in and of interests of welfare, consider what it meant
- They emphasised scientific evidence, and feelings
- ‘Welfare wide term embraces both physical and mental well-being of the animal, must take into account feelings of animals
- Throughout life, morally incumbent to give benefit of doubt and protect so far as possible
- If under control then human responsibility acknowledge
- Five Freedoms came from committee on extend agriculture animals - thirst, hunger, discomfort, pain, injury, express normal behaviour, fear distress
Offence difference
Current law 2006 Act
- Cruelty- Scotland Offences 3 -
1) Any person guilty of offence is cause UNS by act they knew or ought to know that suffering caused
2) responsible for animal
3) If permit suffering via happening and failed to take step to prevent
England and Wales -
1) and 3) same
All this turns on UNS as already explained
- Penalties tend to be 12 months/20,000 fine
Welfare of Farmed Animals (Scotland) Regulations 2010 - Ensuring that farmed animals have responsible person having regard to species
Council Directive 98/58/EC Article 4 - Ensure conditions animals kept under are bred in regards to their development, adaptation and physiological needs etc
European Convention for Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes - Housed and provided food, water and care in manner which is appropriate to their needs in accordance scientific knowledge
Requirements a lot more - Staffing, Equipment, Tethering, Cleaning, Feed, Freedom of movement
- Penalties 6 months/5000 fine
- Penalties depend on case
Quality of Life v Cruelty
Welfare - Different in every situation street dog v middle class dog, entire quality, welfare is a spectrum and will move along it, changes as years go on which bramble reported realised
Cruelty - Cannot address a slightly bad situation, rather it only addressing bad situation once it’s happened it is retrospective
