Memorandum submitted by the Reverend Canon
and Worshipful Professor Barry F Peachey CJ
I have studied the proposals, and in general
I would welcome most of the revisions as being beneficial. It
is not productive to itemise nit-picking disagreements, but where
I do have major concerns and reservations which I think should
be further addressed, they are as follows.
CLAUSE 26: DISQUALIFICATION
This clause is an improvement on the current
situation but unfortunately still does not "grasp the nettle"
as regards domestic offenders. It does prevent a disqualified
person from participating in the keeping of animals in the home,
but adds nothing to that fact that this is almost totally unenforceable
in practice. I commonly see cases where domestic animals, particularly
dogs and cats are very badly treated by a family in general which
may comprise half a dozen occupants of a dwelling. Almost invariably
just one, or perhaps two of the occupants are convicted and disqualified.
This does nothing to prevent the continued keeping of a pet by
adult or teenaged children who claim to be the sole carers for
the animal concerned. It is incredibly difficult to prove anything
to the contrary, and almost invariably, due to the general behaviour
of such people, animals are further abused and the disqualification
is flouted.
I am of the view that there is only one answer
to this, which is that the court should be given power in appropriate
and necessary circumstances to prevent the keeping of any animal,
or type of animal as appropriate, within the curtilage of any
dwelling occupied by the disqualified person. I know that "curtilage"
is a somewhat archaic legal term these days, but we all know what
it means; the domestic living space of that person or family including
their garden, if any. I know that this would be an order that
affected an unconvicted person, but that must be balanced against
the undoubted abuses carried on by convicted persons at present.
I believe that at present the lack of "teeth" in these
court orders is a very serious problem, and I know that they are
laughed at by the majority of offenders, who know full well that
proving breaches of them is very difficult for prosecuting authorities.
CLAUSE 44: APPOINTMENT
OF INSPECTORS
BY LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
I would sincerely hope that this provision is
not intended to facilitate the appointment of the RSPCA Inspectorate
as Local Authority Inspectors. I would not wish to rehearse here
the problems of the RSPCA and their continuing failure over many
years to reconcile their political position with their self-appointed
law enforcement functions and the interests of justice. I and
many other lawyers in the animal law world are extremely concerned
that they have been generally authorised under the Protection
of Animals Act 2000 as agent prosecutors already in the light
of previous high-profile cases which have been pursued for political
expediency rather than in the interests of public justice. It
is not acceptable that the RSPCA uniformed staff should be invested
with quasi-police powers by a back door method of appointment
as Local Authority inspectors.
I am also concerned about the funding arrangements
for Local Authority Inspectors. The history of Local Authority
animal staff is littered with cases where Local Authorities are
required to appoint certain staff, but have conspicuously failed
to do so due to financial restraints. The classic case is Dog
Wardens. Not so many years ago it was announced that Dog Warden
services would be improved so that dogs no longer roamed the streets
and beaches at will. That initiative has clearly failed due to
lack of staffing and resources. One of the worst cases is Ceredigion
in west Wales where a huge rural area of mountains, plus a whole
series of large town, and holiday beaches, including Cardigan
and Aberystwyth, is covered by just two Dog Wardens, one of whom
is almost always unavailable due to being a Union officer. I have
received many stories from around the country where Dog Warden
time is being siphoned off as Wardens are used as Pest Controllers,
and for various other functions as well. Regrettably I can see
the title of "Local Authority Animal Inspector" simply
being added to the existing Dog Wardens so that the legislation
is technically complied with whilst in fact there is no discernible
increase in resources. I would strongly caution the Secretary
of State against putting in place another level of bureaucracy
that the government cannot fund.
ANNEXE F: PROPOSAL
TO LICENCE
LIVERY YARDS
This proposal would bring livery yards approximately
into line with the provisions provided for in respect of other
animals by the Animal Boarding Establishments Act. However I think
that there is a problem in respect of what is known as D-I-Y Livery,
where the horse owner does no more than hire a box in which they
keep a horse for which they, and they alone, are responsible.
This situation does not exist in respect of other animals. In
such cases I think there is a problem in determining just how
far the stable owner can be held responsible for the welfare of
the horse, beyond providing the owner with a safe and adequate
loose-box for their horse. I think there are serious concerns
about the possibility of putting such an establishment out of
business because a client owner has been found to be neglectful.
23 August 2004
| 
