Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals (RSPCA) v McCormick & Ors

For an offence under section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, a protected animal must be placed with another animal or a human for the purpose of fighting, wrestling or baiting. On the assumed facts, this requires immediate physical proximity and sufficient control or restraint to prevent the other animal escaping. Releasing dogs into an area where wild animals may be found, followed by pursuit and attack, is not such a placing. The provision is directed towards organised and controlled animal fights, but financial involvement is not an essential ingredient of the relevant offences. The distinction between animal fighting and hunting preserves the separate statutory schemes under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Hunting Act 2004.

The RSPCA appealed by way of case stated from a ruling of District Judge Kevin Gray at South and West Devon Magistrates’ Court. Five respondents faced charges under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, including keeping or training dogs for animal fighting and causing or attending an animal fight.

The District Judge ruled that an animal fight required a protected animal to be placed with another animal in circumstances where the other animal’s ability to leave was controlled or restricted. He dismissed the section 8 charges. The appeal concerned the meaning of “placed with” and whether section 8 was confined to organised fights involving money.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The District Judge’s ruling was not quashed and no retrial was ordered.

2. Section 8(7) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides an exhaustive definition of an animal fight. The critical words, construed in their statutory context and according to ordinary language, are “placed with” and “for the purpose of fighting”.

3. “Placed with” connotes putting the protected animal together with the other animal or human. It does not include releasing a dog into land or woods where another animal might be found. By reference to the assumed facts, two elements were required: immediate physical proximity and control sufficient to prevent the other animal escaping.

4. The requirement for control is fact-sensitive. It is necessary where the other animal would instinctively escape, as with a deer pursued by dogs. It is not necessarily required where two trained fighting dogs are deliberately placed together and both are expected to fight. The construction therefore does not restrict the section to fights between protected animals.

5. The statutory context showed that section 8 is directed towards organised and controlled animal fights. The distinction also preserved the separate regime under the Hunting Act 2004. Hunting involves pursuit, not placing a protected animal with another animal for the purpose of fighting, and the prey remains free to escape.

6. Money is not a necessary element of the offences under section 8(1)(a), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h) or (i) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It may be an aggravating factor, but the District Judge was wrong to the extent that he treated it as invariably required.

7. The RSPCA was awarded £5,000 from central funds towards its appeal costs under section 17(1)(b) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The respondents’ costs were ordered to be subject to legal aid taxation.

1. High Court (Administrative Court) — The appeal by way of case stated was dismissed. The answers given by the District Judge were upheld subject to clarification that money was not an essential ingredient of the relevant section 8 offences.
2. South and West Devon Magistrates’ Court — District Judge Kevin Gray ruled on the meaning of “animal fighting” under section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and dismissed the section 8 charges.