HUMANE LEAGUE UK v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Paragraph 29 of Schedule 1 to the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007 concerns whether an animal’s genotype or phenotype permits it to be kept for farming without detrimental effects on health or welfare. It does not regulate the detailed welfare conditions in which the animal is kept. Those conditions are addressed by other provisions, including the monitoring and notification system for conventionally reared meat chickens. A challenge based on treating that monitoring system as a policy authorising a particular breed therefore rests on a false premise. Any remaining challenge to the system’s rationality faces the court’s limited role in technical matters and is unarguable where it depends on the rejected statutory construction.

This was a renewed application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings. Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Miss Grange QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge.

The claimant, an animal-welfare organisation, challenged the Secretary of State’s approach to fast-growing broiler chickens under the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007. It alleged that the trigger levels in the welfare monitoring code constituted an unlawful policy under paragraph 29 of Schedule 1, that the monitoring system was inadequate, and that the system breached competition-law equal-treatment obligations.

1. Permission refused. The claim was not arguable.
2. Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 authorised the making of the Regulations. Regulation 4 and Schedule 1 had to be read together with the separate provisions in Schedule 5A.
3. Paragraph 29 of Schedule 1, under the heading “Breeding Procedures”, concerned the type or breed of animal. The question was whether, having regard to its genotype or phenotype, it could reasonably be expected to be kept for farming without detrimental effects on health or welfare. It was not directed to the welfare conditions or mortality levels arising from the manner in which the animal was kept.
4. The trigger system was made under paragraph 15 of Schedule 5A. Its trigger levels and notification requirements addressed welfare conditions in conventionally reared meat chickens. They did not constitute a Secretary of State policy permitting the keeping of fast-growing chickens contrary to paragraph 29.
5. Ground 1 therefore depended on a false premise. Ground 2 could only remain as a rationality challenge concerning the keeping of the chickens. That challenge was unarguable, particularly given the technical nature of the issues and the evidence that approximately 98 or 99 per cent of conventionally reared chickens met the relevant welfare standards.
6. Ground 3, alleging unequal treatment between producers of fast-growing and slower-growing chickens, was parasitic on grounds 1 and 2. Once those grounds failed, ground 3 could not stand independently.

Permission had previously been refused on the papers by Miss Grange QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge. The Administrative Court refused the renewed application.