Royal Society for the Protection of Animals, R (on the application of) v C

Whether conduct is unreasonable under section 1(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911 is not determined by a purely abstract standard that excludes the defendant’s circumstances. The court must assess the explanation for the omission and all relevant circumstances. These may include the defendant’s age, household position, reliance on another person’s decision, and the availability of alternative action. The inquiry remains objective in the sense that it asks whether the conduct was reasonable or unreasonable, but relevant personal and factual circumstances are not thereby transformed into an impermissible subjective test.

The respondent, aged 15, was convicted of no offence after magistrates found that she had not acted unreasonably by accepting her father’s decision not to obtain veterinary treatment for the household cat. The Royal Society for the Protection of Animals appealed by way of case stated, arguing that the magistrates should have applied a purely objective test and disregarded the respondent’s youth and reliance on her father.

The appeal concerned the proper meaning and application of “unreasonably” in section 1(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, and the significance of earlier Divisional Court decisions in RSPCA v Hall & Hall and RSPCA v Isaacs.

1. Appeal dismissed. The magistrates were entitled to conclude that the respondent had not acted unreasonably.

2. The offence required proof that the cat suffered unnecessarily and that the suffering was caused by the respondent’s unreasonable omission to provide necessary care and attention. The relevant issue was whether this respondent acted reasonably or unreasonably in accepting her father’s decision that veterinary treatment was not yet necessary.

3. The court rejected the submission that the respondent’s youth, household position and reliance on her father were impermissible subjective considerations. The magistrates were entitled, and in the circumstances obliged, to consider all the circumstances in which she failed to act. Relevant matters included her age, the fact that she did not have sole responsibility for the cat, her father’s control of the household and decision-making, her communication to him that the cat should see a vet, and the possibility of alternative action such as taking the cat to a vet or charitable organisation.

4. The expressions “objective test” and “subjective test” require care. RSPCA v Hall & Hall rejected a requirement that the defendant must subjectively appreciate that the conduct was unreasonable. That did not require the court to ignore circumstances relevant to the reasonableness of the omission. RSPCA v Isaacs was concerned with the different question arising on a submission of no case, when the court must assess whether there is evidence capable of supporting a conviction rather than decide in advance whether the defence will succeed.

5. The respondent was awarded her legally aided costs, subject to taxation.

• High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated appeal, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the magistrates’ conclusion.
• Magistrates’ court: The respondent was acquitted after the magistrates found that, in the circumstances, she had not acted unreasonably.