Defendants had been convicted of maltreatment of horses. The crown court had overturned a permanent ban on keeping horses, substituting a limit of keeping 25 horses with a conditional discharge. The prosecutor now appealed.
Held: The court had no power to make the order it had in setting a number of animals. The power to grant a conditional discharge is dependent on its being inexpedient to inflict punishment, and that the power to annex conditions is not at large but is confined to a condition of committing no offence during a specified period. The conditions were quashed and remitted for resentencing.
Sedley LJ, beatson J
[2006] EWHC 1273 (Admin)
Bailii
Protection of Animals Act 1911 1(1)(a), Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954 1(1), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 12(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Nash v Birmingham Crown Court Admn 18-Feb-2005
The defendant who had had 75 cats in her home with consequences that they had been not well looked after was convicted of animal cruelty. She had been ‘given a conditional discharge’, one of the conditions being that she could not thereafter look . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.242300