Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals v Chester Crown Court

A statutory disqualification from having custody of animals may vary only as to its duration and the kinds of animal covered. The power does not permit a court to impose a numerical limit on the animals a person may keep. A conditional discharge cannot be used to impose such a restriction: its statutory conditions are confined to refraining from further offending during a specified period. Where a Crown Court exceeds that jurisdiction, the unlawful disqualification may be quashed and the sentencing matter remitted.

Two defendants were convicted by the Crewe Justices of causing unnecessary suffering to horses under the Protection of Animals Act 1911. They were disqualified for life from having custody of equines under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954.

On appeal against sentence, Chester Crown Court replaced the lifetime disqualifications with orders which would permit each defendant to keep no more than 25 horses from a future date. The fines and costs were left undisturbed. The RSPCA sought judicial review, arguing that the Crown Court lacked jurisdiction to impose a numerical restriction. The central issues were the scope of the statutory disqualification power and whether a conditional discharge could provide an alternative route to the same result.

1. Appeal allowed. The Divisional Court quashed the two disqualification orders made by Chester Crown Court and remitted the appeal to that court for determination of sentence in accordance with the judgment.
2. Lord Justice Sedley held that section 1(1) of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 conferred a precise and exhaustive power. The sentencing court could choose the duration of a disqualification and the kinds of animal to which it related. Those were the only respects in which the order was flexible. The provision did not authorise a restriction based on the number of animals kept. The Crown Court therefore exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a limit of 25 horses.
3. The court was concerned with jurisdiction rather than the merits of the Crown Court’s reasons. Those reasons included the absence of evidence of general neglect and the conclusion that the defendants kept more horses than they could manage.
4. The proposed use of a conditional discharge could not cure the defect. Section 12(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 made a conditional discharge available only where it was inexpedient to inflict punishment. Its condition-making power was confined to requiring that the offender commit no offence during a specified period of up to three years. It did not authorise a condition limiting the number of animals kept, particularly where fines had been imposed and upheld.
5. Mr Justice Beatson agreed with Lord Justice Sedley. The court observed, obiter, that Parliament might wish to consider whether animal protection legislation should authorise orders of the kind sought by the Crown Court.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): The application for judicial review was allowed. The Crown Court’s numerical disqualification orders were quashed and the sentencing appeal was remitted.
2. Chester Crown Court: On appeal against sentence, the Crown Court left the fines and costs in place but modified the disqualification orders to restrict each defendant to keeping no more than 25 horses.
3. Crewe Justices: The defendants had been convicted and disqualified for life from having custody of equines.