Keam, R (on the application of) v DEFRA

The obligation to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with animal-welfare requirements is a personal, objective duty. A keeper is not criminally liable merely because an independent contractor fails to care properly for animals. Liability depends on whether the keeper personally failed to take reasonable steps, which may include selecting a competent contractor, monitoring performance and requiring compliance with appropriate requirements. The issue is for the trial court, and the prosecution should ordinarily identify the steps said to have been omitted. Illness may affect what steps are reasonable, but does not remove the duty.

The claimant appealed by way of case stated from the decision of Plymouth Crown Court dated 13 September 2004, which had rejected his appeal against conviction by Plymouth Magistrates' Court. He was prosecuted under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 after a lame cow was found on his farm.

The claimant had appointed an independent farmer to attend to the animals. The central issue was whether the statutory duty to take all reasonable steps imposed liability for the contractor's default, or instead required proof of a personal failure by the keeper.

1. Appeal allowed. The Crown Court conviction was quashed. The question posed by the case stated was answered “No”.
2. Regulation 3(2) of the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 imposes a personal duty on the keeper. The phrase “all reasonable steps” requires an objective assessment of what it was reasonable for that keeper to do in the circumstances.
3. Appointment of an independent contractor may be one reasonable step, but will often be insufficient by itself. Relevant steps may include ensuring that the contractor is competent, checking that the contractor performs the required work, and requiring compliance with contractual or other appropriate requirements.
4. A contractor's failure does not, by itself, establish criminal liability for the keeper. There is no vicarious liability where the keeper proves that he personally took all reasonable steps. Liability may nevertheless arise where both the contractor defaulted and the keeper failed in his own duty.
5. The approach was confirmed by Seaboard Offshore Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [1994] 1 WLR 1025, concerning the same expression in a different statutory context.
6. The Crown Court had not identified the reasonable steps which the claimant had failed to take, nor clearly found that appointing the contractor was insufficient. It therefore had not shown that the correct test was applied. The claimant's illness did not absolve him from the duty, although it could affect which steps were reasonable. The conviction was accordingly quashed, with legal aid assessment ordered.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On 28 June 2005, the appeal by way of case stated was allowed and the Plymouth Crown Court decision was quashed.
• Plymouth Crown Court: On 13 September 2004, the claimant's appeal against conviction was rejected.
• Plymouth Magistrates' Court: The claimant had been convicted of an offence under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000.