The defendant had pleaded guilty to three charges of causing unnecessary cruelty to animals. She appealed against an order for unpaid community work and the costs of pounds 38,644. The horses had been removed by the Society after a veterinary surgeon said it was necessary under the 2006 Act. The defendant said that the removal was unlawful since the section required the opinion to be certified, but it had been given orally. The issue is one of construction as to whether the word ‘certifies’ means certifies in writing.
Held: Keith J said: The word ‘certifies’ has to be construed, of course, in accordance with its ordinary meaning, subject to the context of the statutory provisions in which it appears. The word connotes a degree of formality, and the proposition that the degree of formality which is necessary is that the certification be in writing is, in my view, supported by section 18(10) of the Act, which provides, so far as is material: ‘A veterinary surgeon may examine and take samples from an animal for the purpose of determining whether to issue a certificate under subsection . . (5) with respect to the animal.’ However: ‘it would, I think, be very surprising if section 18(5) were to be construed in a way which permits a police officer to act so as to put an animal out of its distress before the veterinary surgeon arrives, but does not permit the animal to be relieved of its suffering after the veterinary surgeon arrives, even though the veterinary surgeon thinks that the animal is suffering, but for one reason or another does not put that into writing.’ and ‘ I have concluded that section 18(5) does not require the certification to be in writing, and that the seizure and detention of Mrs James’s horses was not unlawful.’
Keith J
[2011] EWHC 1642 (Admin), (2011) 175 JP 485
Bailii
Animal Welfare Act 2006
England and Wales
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.441397
