Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, R (on the application of) v Shinton

A licence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 may exempt conduct from the statutory prohibition on confining birds, where the use is for a purpose identified in the licence and complies with its conditions. The court left open whether actual conservation must be proved, or whether an honest and reasonable belief would suffice where the trap could not in fact conserve wild birds.

Lawful use of a trap under that Act does not prevent an offence of unnecessary suffering under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. Section 1 focuses on the particular animal alleged to have suffered, rather than on any comparison with the aggregate suffering of other animals.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals brought proceedings arising from Mr Shinton’s use of a Larsen trap and a live magpie decoy. The Telford Magistrates’ Court dismissed informations alleging unlawful confinement under section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and unnecessary suffering under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911.

The district judge stated four questions concerning the effect of the wildlife licence, the relationship between lawful trapping and animal cruelty, and the correctness of the acquittals.

1. The court held that the use of the Larsen trap fell within the terms of the general licence issued under section 16(1)(c) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The district judge had found that the purpose was to protect songbirds from magpies, which was a purpose identified in the licence. The acquittal under section 8(1) was therefore correct.

2. The court left open whether a trap must in fact conserve wild birds, or whether it is sufficient that the occupier uses it for that purpose and honestly and reasonably believes that it will do so. Requiring advance expert evidence to establish successful conservation would impose too great a burden on occupiers. The issue did not arise on the facts stated.

3. The court rejected the view that lawful use under the wildlife legislation automatically made suffering under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 necessary. The two statutory regimes operated independently. The relevant question under section 1(1)(a) was whether the particular decoy bird suffered unnecessarily.

4. On the accepted veterinary evidence, the bird had suffered substantial injury and its condition was consistent with prolonged confinement. The court held that it was impossible to say that the suffering was not unnecessary. It answered the question concerning whether cruelty could be established despite compliance with the licence in the affirmative and the question whether the acquittal under the 1911 Act was correct in the negative.

5. The case was not remitted to the Magistrates’ Court because the claimant sought determination of the legal issues and did not invite remittal.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — answered the stated questions. It upheld the acquittal under section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, but held that an offence under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 could be made out. The matter was not remitted.
2. Telford Magistrates’ Court — dismissed both informations on 8 April 2002.