The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Environment Food And Rural Affairs

Judicial review of a national animal-welfare rule requires review of legality, rationality and relevant considerations, not a merits-based decision about the best welfare outcome. A decision-maker may balance competing scientific evidence and policy considerations, and need not adopt the conclusions of a particular study. A national rule is lawful under Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009 if it is aimed at ensuring more extensive animal protection. The requirement that ruminants be individually mechanically restrained means that multiple sheep cannot be restrained together in one V-restrainer. A challenge may also be refused for substantial delay, particularly where the challenged policy was clearly communicated before the statutory instrument was made.

The claimant, a trade association representing abattoirs and meat traders, sought judicial review of the Secretary of State’s approach to the use of V-restrainers for sheep slaughtered without prior stunning in accordance with religious rites.

The challenge concerned paragraph 6(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Welfare at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015, which required the slaughterman to be ready to make the incision immediately after a sheep was placed in restraining equipment. The claimant argued that the rule was ultra vires, irrational and inconsistent with Articles 9(3), 15(2) and 26 of Council Regulation (EC) 1099/2009. The latter two grounds were abandoned before the Court of Appeal. The central issues were whether the national rule was aimed at more extensive animal protection, whether the EU Regulation permitted multiple loading, and whether the claim was out of time.

1. Claim dismissed. The court dealt with the substantive challenge despite the delay issue because animal welfare was a matter of public interest. The claim was nevertheless also barred by delay.
2. Judicial review did not require the court to determine whether individual or multiple loading was objectively best for sheep. The question was whether DEFRA acted unlawfully, irrationally or without considering relevant matters. DEFRA was entitled to balance restraint stress, isolation stress, handling stress and the available scientific material.
3. Paragraph 6(1)(a) was aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals within Article 26 of the EU Regulation. Its purpose was to reduce the period for which sheep were restrained, a condition recognised as causing distress, to the shortest physically possible period. DEFRA had considered the Bates Report and had obtained specific scientific advice on it. It was not required to follow that report slavishly.
4. Article 15(2) required sheep slaughtered without prior stunning under Article 4(4) to be individually and mechanically restrained. A V-restrainer was mechanical restraint, but placing several sheep in it at once did not amount to individual restraint. Article 26 permitted stricter national rules, so the interpretation challenged by the claimant was lawful.
5. The challenge was approximately 17 months late if time ran from the August 2014 letter, which clearly stated DEFRA’s policy. Alternatively, time ran at the latest when the Regulations were laid before Parliament. The absence of an adequate explanation for the delay meant that an extension would not have been granted.

• Court of Appeal: Permission to appeal was granted on the vires issue and the timing issue. The claimant abandoned the irrationality and failure-to-consider-relevant-evidence grounds.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The substantive judicial review claim was dismissed.