The defendant had been convicted of cruelty to his animals. The prosecutor appealed dismissal of an application for an interim order for protection under the 2000 Act in respect of other animals not the subject of the application.
Held: The 2000 Act preserved the meanings used in the 1911 Act, and the section did not extend to animals other than those who had been the subject of the proceedings. In this case the words ‘and for connected purposes’ were insufficient to extend the ambit of the Act.
Judges:
Toulson J
Citations:
[2003] EWHC 374 (Admin), [2003] 2 All ER 178
Links:
Statutes:
Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000 2, Protection of Animals Act 1911 1
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Regina v Bates 1952
If a statute is ambiguous, the court may look at the long title to discover the purpose of the Act: ‘In many cases the long title may supply the key to the meaning. The principle, as I understand it, is that where something is doubtful or ambiguous . .
Cited by:
Cited – Worcestershire County Council v Tongue, Tongue, and Tongue CA 17-Feb-2004
The defendants had been convicted of animal welfare offences, and banned from keeping animals. The claimant sought to enter the premises to remove animals, but were denied entry.
Held: The court had no power to make an order to allow access . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Animals
Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184960