Ward v RSPCA

On an appeal by way of case stated, the High Court may intervene only where the Crown Court’s decision is wrong in law, in excess of jurisdiction or wrong in principle. Previous convictions may aggravate the seriousness of an animal-welfare offence where their nature is relevant and sufficient time has not elapsed to diminish their significance. A disqualification order may extend to species not involved in the current offence where the offender’s demonstrated failure of care is equally applicable to those animals. Partnership arrangements do not exempt an offender from disqualification, and differing treatment of co-offenders is justified where one has relevant previous convictions and the other does not.

Anthony Ward appealed by way of case stated from a decision of the Crown Court at Southampton, which had upheld his convictions for causing unnecessary suffering to two ponies contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The Crown Court had imposed a ten-year disqualification from owning, keeping or controlling animals, including cattle, and had restricted an application to lift the order for three years.

The appeal concerned the relevance of two previous convictions, the inclusion of cattle in the order, the short period since an earlier disqualification expired, the different treatment of Ward’s partner, and the effect of their farming partnership.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appeal was by way of case stated. Under section 28 of the Senior Courts Act, the High Court could intervene only if the Crown Court’s decision was wrong in law, in excess of jurisdiction or wrong in principle. The court had no general sentencing jurisdiction equivalent to that of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
2. Section 143(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 required previous convictions to be treated as aggravating factors where, having regard particularly to the nature and relevance of the earlier offence and the time elapsed, they could reasonably be so treated. Ward’s two earlier convictions for causing unnecessary suffering to animals were materially relevant. The expiry of his previous disqualification only three years before the present offences was also seriously aggravating.
3. The disqualification could properly extend to cattle although the current offences concerned ponies. The earlier cattle conviction and the present failure to recognise the need for veterinary treatment showed a lack of care capable of affecting cattle as well as ponies.
4. There was no objectionable disparity in disqualifying Ward but not his partner. Although both were responsible for the animals, Ward had two relevant previous convictions and his partner had none.
5. A partnership did not provide an exemption from disqualification. The order served both a punitive and protective purpose under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. The burden imposed on Ward’s partner by the partnership arrangement did not make the order unlawful.
6. The disqualification was justified and neither unlawful nor in excess of jurisdiction. All five questions were answered in the Crown Court’s favour.

• High Court (Administrative Court): appeal by way of case stated dismissed. The court upheld the Crown Court’s decision.
• Crown Court at Southampton: upheld convictions imposed by the Lyndhurst Magistrates’ Court and imposed a ten-year animal-keeping disqualification.
• Lyndhurst Magistrates’ Court: convicted Ward of two offences of causing unnecessary suffering to ponies.