The claimants challenged regulations as to animal welfare, saying that they allowed farmers to use practices which did not protect animal welfare.
Held: It was not unlawful to adopt a policy of not prosecuting farmers for practices which would leave breeder chickens facing chronic hunger. The obligation was to pursue policies which would promote animal well-being, which allowed that the policies might not succeed, given that a balance had to be found. Any order for prosecution could only be in respect of particular circumstances which were not before the court.
Judges:
Lord Justice Judge Lord Justice May Lord Justice Sedley
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1009, Times 09-Aug-2004
Links:
Statutes:
Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 1870), Council Directive 98/58/EC
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Compassion in World Farming Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Admn 27-Nov-2003
The Directive sought to provide welfare protection for battery chickens. The applicant complained that the farming techniques which restricted diet in order to encourage fast growth would have been prevented if the respondent had properly . .
See Also – Regina v Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex parte Compassion In World Farming Ltd ECJ 19-Mar-1998
Restrictions of export of live animals were unsupportable under the Treaty. The justification for the rules which was that the action of exporting live animals was contrary to public morals, or for the protection of the animals was insufficient.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Animals
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199743
