Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals (RSPCA) v Webb

For the purposes of the six-month limit in section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, seizure of an animal under section 18(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not automatically mark the date on which the matter of complaint arose. The relevant date depends on the particular facts. A complaint may arise on the date of seizure where the information then available was sufficient to identify the statutory intervention required. Conversely, the need for a section 20 order may arise only later, after further examination or developments in the animal’s condition. On the facts, the complaint arose when the cats were seized, so the proceedings were out of time.

The RSPCA took cats into possession on 9 February 2010 under section 18(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It later applied for orders under section 20 concerning their possession, disposal and destruction. The application was filed on 10 August 2010.

The Crown Court allowed the respondents’ appeal, holding that the application was a complaint subject to section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and that the complaint arose on 9 February, making it one day out of time. The RSPCA appealed by way of case stated. The issue before the Divisional Court was whether the matter of complaint arose on seizure or only when subsequent veterinary evidence clarified the cats’ condition.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court proceeded on the assumed basis that the section 20 application was a complaint subject to section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
2. Seizure under section 18(5) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not, in every case, automatically determine when the matter of complaint arose. The statutory time limit may begin later, since the need for a section 20 order can emerge only after subsequent developments, examination or treatment.
3. The relevant question is whether, on the particular facts, the circumstances existing at seizure gave rise to a matter of complaint. The statutory provisions concerning urgent action without waiting for a veterinary certificate show that the animal’s condition at the relevant time is central.
4. In this case, the material before the Crown Court established that cats had been certified as suffering and that at least one had the virus or antibodies at the time of seizure. There was therefore sufficient material for the Crown Court to conclude that the matter of complaint arose on 9 February 2010, even though the appropriate order for each individual cat was not yet known.
5. The court expressly left open whether proceedings under section 20 are in all cases complaints within section 127(1). The Crown Court’s decision that the application was out of time, and its consequential dismissal of the proceedings as a nullity, was upheld.

• Crown Court at Derby: On 10 October 2014, the Crown Court allowed the respondents’ appeal against the magistrates’ orders. It held that the section 20 application was a complaint subject to section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and was out of time.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The Crown Court’s conclusion that the matter of complaint arose on 9 February 2010 was upheld on the particular facts.