Royal Society for The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Chester Crown Court

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE SEDLEY,MR JUSTICE BEATSON
Judgment Date17 May 2006
Neutral Citation[2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin)
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date17 May 2006
Docket NumberCO/8499/2005

[2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

DIVISIONAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2

Before:

Lord Justice Sedley

Mr Justice Beatson

CO/8499/2005

Royal Society For The Prevention Of Cruelty To Animals
CLAIMANT)
and
Chester Crown Court
DEFENDANT)

MR I O'DONNELL (instructed by Wains Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the CLAIMANT

THE DEFENDANT WAS NOT REPRESENTED AND DID NOT APPEAR

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY
1

Mr and Mrs Foster were convicted by the Crewe Justices of causing unnecessary suffering to two horses by omitting to provide proper care and attention for them contrary to section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

2

The two horses, which had been found by RSPCA inspectors (one recovered but one had to be put down), were part of a population of about 60 horses kept by the Fosters on their farm. The account given by the defendants, and not disputed by the prosecutor, was that they were mountain ponies which Mrs Foster would buy from dealers who were taking them, often in an emaciated condition, to be slaughtered, and would rehabilitate them and then sell them on hopefully to good homes. But no appeal was pursued against the convictions in relation to the two animals which were the subject of the charges.

3

The justices fined Mrs Foster £500 on each charge, together with £2,500 as compensation to the RSPCA for attending to the animals, and £500 towards the prosecution's costs. Mr Foster was fined £250 for each offence, with £1,086.79 compensation and £250 costs. Under section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954, both defendants were disqualified for life from having the custody of any equine.

4

On appeal against sentence to Chester Crown Court, HHJ Halbert, sitting with lay justices, left the fines and costs orders in place and modified the orders for compensation. Nothing now turns on these elements of the decision. But the Crown Court also, following submissions, altered the disqualification orders so that they prevented each defendant from a date in the near future from keeping more than 25 horses at a time. The RSPCA seeks in these judicial review proceedings, for which Black J has granted permission, a quashing order in relation to this element of the Crown Court's decision, or alternatively in relation to the entirety of the Crown Court's decision, together with remission, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to make such an order.

5

This means that we are not concerned with the reasons why the Crown Court took the course it did. But it is fair to them and to the Fosters to explain that it was because there was no evidence of chronic or general neglect of their horses, and there was evidence that they spent a fair amount of money on veterinary bills. The problem, as the Crown Court found, was that the defendants simply had more horses than they could cope with, with the result that some were neglected. The Crown Court did not embark upon the more difficult question whether reducing the numbers would reduce the farm's commercial margins still further and so increase the risk of neglect of those horses that remained. Nor is it clear whether the effect of the orders would be to allow the defendants to keep 50 horses between them.

6

The application for judicial review is made by Mr Ian O'Donnell on the RSPCA's behalf. The Crown Court, as is normal, takes no part in the proceedings. Mr and Mrs Foster, who have been correctly served as interested parties but whom I will continue to call the defendants, have not been able to afford representation. But their solicitors, Charltons, have submitted a written argument on their behalf for which the court is most grateful. We have of course taken it into account.

7

Section 1(1) of the 1954 Act provides:

"Where a person has been convicted under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 … of an offence of cruelty to any animal the court by which he is convicted may, if it thinks fit, in addition to or in substitution for any other punishment, order him to be disqualified, for such period as it thinks fit, for having custody of any animal or any animal of a kind specified in the order."

8

This power is, in my judgment, precise and exhaustive. It gives the court a choice as to (a) the duration of any disqualification it imposes and (b) what kinds of animal the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruely to Animals v Preston Crown Court
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 16 May 2014
    ...the Recorder in the Crown Court in order to draw to the court's attention the case in this court of RSPCA v Chester Crown Court [2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin), the court consisting of Sedley LJ and Beatson J (as he then) to which it will be necessary to refer again a little later. In the light of......
  • R David William Daniel v (1) East Devon District Council (2) Brent Hushon (Interested Party)
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 20 December 2013
    ...on a similar application to a consideration of a later application is well-established: Havard v. South Kesteven District Council [2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin) paragraph 12. 20 This claim concerns criticisms of officer advice to members in a report, as to which the leading authorities are R v. P......
  • King v Royal Society for The Protection of Cruelty to Animals
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 5 March 2007
    ...17 May 2006 this court considered and gave judgment in Royal Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals v Chester Crown Court [2006] EWHC Admin 1273. In the course of the judgment in that case Lord Justice Sedley stated that the power contained in the relevant section of the Protectio......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT