Wright v The Reading Crown Court & Anor

For the purposes of Animal Welfare Act 2006, s 8(1)(h), a person may keep or train an animal through another person. “Keeping” is not confined to physical possession. It may include retaining control of an animal kept elsewhere, including through an agent. Similarly, training may be carried out by another person on the accused’s behalf. A narrower interpretation would improperly restrict the statutory purpose of criminalising involvement in animal fighting.

The claimant had been convicted of offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. On appeal, the Reading Crown Court quashed one conviction but upheld her conviction for keeping or training an animal for use in connection with an animal fight. The Crown Court refused to state a case on whether s 8(1)(h) applied where the animal was kept or trained through an agent. The claimant sought judicial review of that refusal.

The central issue was whether “keeps or trains” required actual physical possession or personal performance of the training.

1. The claim for judicial review was dismissed. The Reading Crown Court’s refusal to state a case was neither wrong, irrational nor unlawful.

2. Section 8(1)(h) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 should be given its ordinary natural meaning. A person may keep an animal through another person where the person retains control of it, even though it is physically kept at another location.

3. The expression “keeps” is not limited to actual physical possession. Section 34(2)(c), concerning disqualification from participating in the keeping of animals, supported an interpretation encompassing shared control rather than physical possession alone.

4. The same reasoning applies to training. A person may commit the offence by arranging for another person to train the animal for use in connection with an animal fight. The offence is not confined to the person who personally possesses or trains the animal.

5. The court also found assistance in regulation 2 of the Wildlife and Countryside (Registration Ringing and Marking of Certain Captive Birds) (England) Regulations 2015, which treated keeping as including possession or control. The claimant’s physical possession of the dog during part of the relevant period independently made her proposed question academic.

6. The stay on the destruction order under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 was extended until 21 days after an unsuccessful referral to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The Interested Party’s costs of £8,221.80 were ordered to be paid from Central Funds.

1. East Berkshire (Slough) Magistrates’ Court: convicted the claimant of offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.
2. Reading Crown Court: quashed one Animal Welfare Act conviction, upheld the conviction under s 8(1)(h), varied the sentence and refused to state a case.
3. High Court (Administrative Court): granted permission but dismissed the judicial review claim.