Animal Protection Services v Alex-Kaye Carrigan and Elisha Brown
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 November 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Civil |
| Court | Crown Court |
1
T20210341/0342
In the Crown Court at Manchester (Crown Square)
Animal Protection Services (a private prosecutor) v Alex-Kaye Carrigan (T20210341)
Animal Protection Services (a private prosecutor) v Elisha Brown (T20210342)
Judgment regarding Abuse of Process, Dismissal and Costs
1. Introduction
The prosecutions of Ms Carrigan and Ms Brown are quite separate cases, but it is accepted
that identical issues arise as between the two cases and in this Court the cases have been
heard together. Where any issue or matter is individual to one of the cases, such will be set
out in this judgment. Earlier hearings at this Court led to both cases being listed before me on
Monday 18 October 2021 when I heard lengthy and wide ranging submissions from all
parties, including too from Mr James Parry of Messrs Parry and Welch, Solicitors, which
firm was until recently instructed by Animal Protection Services (APS) to conduct, on behalf
of APS, the prosecutions of Ms Carrigan and Ms Brown. More will be said in due course
about the status, role and activities of Messrs Parry and Welch in these proceedings. By the
time of the hearing on 18 October, a significant amount of documentation had been served in
the form of statements and written representations concerning the issues of dismissal, abuse
of process and costs. More written material was provided to me on 18 October, some of
which APS and Messrs Parry and Welch had not had the chance to consider. Whilst
concluding the oral hearing on 18 October, I gave permission for further written material to
be provided so that no party should be disadvantaged by having received documents on, or
shortly before, 18 October. Messrs Parry and Welch have provided further written
representations as regards cost in a document dated 21 October (and have provided a s.9
statement dated 22 October in Ms Welch’s name, a statement that deals with matters not
directly relevant to the issues in Ms Brown’s and Ms Carrigan’s cases).
Animal Protection Services have provided a comprehensive skeleton argument, drafted by
counsel and dated 22 October. Attached to the skeleton argument are statements from Jacob
Lloyd (dated 12th and 19th October) as well as other witness statements and documentary
material dealing with the activities of APS. I note as well that at paragraphs 24 and 25 of his
statement of 19 October, Mr Lloyd makes serious allegations about the behaviour and
activities of Messrs Parry and Welch, but then at paragraph 26 he states “…(APS) does not
waive legal professional privilege in these proceedings”. Since Mr Lloyd makes significant
criticisms of Messrs Parry and Welch in their conduct of the proceedings against Ms Carrigan
and Ms Brown, it seems to me that had the statement of 19 October been before me when I
heard submissions on 18 October, I would certainly have heard evidence as to whether Mr
2
Lloyd had waived privilege, which, although no doubt unintended, on the face of it he clearly
had.
I have considered all of the written material provided to me, and I will refer to some of that
material in the course of this judgment, but it quickly became clear on 18 October that the
activities of APS and Messrs Parry and Welch, required broader scrutiny and inquiry,
scrutiny and inquiry of a type this Court is neither equipped nor jurisdictionally able to
perform. I deal with the further scrutiny and inquiry I believe is required in this judgment, but
that part of the judgment is obiter to the judgment concerning Ms Carrigan and Ms Brown.
Because, as I have said, scrutiny and inquiry of the broader activities of APS and Messrs
Parry and Welch is required and can’t be carried out by this Court, I have reached no
conclusions relevant to Ms Carrigan’s and Ms Brown’s cases other than on the basis of the
written material and oral representations directly connected with their cases, where I have
taken other material in to account it is information of a general and undisputed kind. In other
words, I ignore material that might be considered to be prejudicial to APS and Messrs Parry
and Welch, except where such material arises directly in and from the cases before me, and I
have only taken in to account material the parties, particularly APS and Messrs Parry and
Welch, have been able to respond to.
2. Private Prosecutions
APS is a charity whose objectives are said to be to promote humane behaviour towards
animals and to prevent and suppress cruelty to animals, “…in particular by investigating
allegations of animal cruelty and bringing prosecutions”, and in the first half of 2021 it was
highly active in bringing prosecutions, mostly in the Magistrates’ Court, for offences relating,
broadly, to animal (principally, dog) welfare. Messrs Parry and Welch are s olicitors operating
as an LLP, the principals being James Parry and Kate Welch. Parry and Welch style
themselves as “PAWS” with the imprint of an animal paw featuring as the firm’s logo. Parry
and Welch advertise themselves as a not for profit firm specialising in dangerous dog
legislation and animal welfare. On the face of it, Messrs Parry and Welch closely identify in
their outlook with the objectives of APS.
Relatively little emerged in the course of the proceedings about APS. It was registered at a
charity “recently”. Jacob Lloyd is named as a “Senior Prosecutor (Prosecutor Paralegal) A
Inst PA admitted 16 March 2021” for APS, and for all intents and purposes Mr Lloyd
appears to be APS. Open source material indicates that Mr Lloyd can fairly be said to be a
prominent animal rights activist. One Serena James appears to be an employee of APS, and
she is described as a “Prosecutor not admitted” and sometimes as an “Investigations
Officer” for APS. It was suggested before me, and not denied on behalf of APS, that Mr
Lloyd and, possibly, Ms James were (and remain) trustees of APS. No other individuals were
identified before me as being associated with APS, whose trustees are permitted to remain
anonymous by the Charity Commission. I was told that Mr Lloyd and Ms James were at court
on 18 October, but they were not called upon by APS (or Mr Parry) to testify, despite being
To continue reading
Request your trial