Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Munur & Anor

For an offence under section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the offence may be committed in respect of both the bird and the cage where the prohibited conduct consists of keeping the bird in an inadequate cage. Section 21(6)(a) therefore requires forfeiture of both, leaving the sentencing court no discretion to decline forfeiture of the bird. The mandatory provision also applies to the cage; the discretionary power in section 21(6)(b) is not the applicable power.

The respondents were convicted of keeping a yellow cockatiel and an African Grey parrot in cages that were insufficient to permit them to stretch their wings freely, contrary to section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The magistrates ordered forfeiture of the cages but concluded that the birds were not within section 21(6)(a).

The magistrates later reopened the sentence under section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and confirmed their conclusion. On a case stated, the Administrative Court considered whether forfeiture of the birds was mandatory and whether the cages fell within the mandatory or discretionary forfeiture provisions.

1. Appeal allowed. The matter was remitted to the magistrates to order forfeiture in accordance with the statute.
2. Section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 creates an offence where a person keeps or confines a bird in a cage that is insufficient in height, length or breadth to permit the bird to stretch its wings freely. On a straightforward reading, the offence is committed in respect of both the bird and the cage. The offence results from the conjunction of keeping the birds and keeping them in the inadequate cages.
3. Under section 21(6)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the convicting court shall order forfeiture of any bird or other thing in respect of which the offence was committed. The magistrates therefore had no discretion to decline forfeiture of the two birds.
4. The mandatory forfeiture provision applied to the cages as well as to the birds. The cages were not to be dealt with under the discretionary power in section 21(6)(b).

Mr Justice Cooke agreed with Lord Justice Latham.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): On a case stated by the magistrates, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for mandatory forfeiture orders.
2. Magistrates' court: The respondents were convicted and the magistrates ordered forfeiture of the cages, but declined to order forfeiture of the birds under section 21(6)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.