Animal Welfare Sentencing Bill

This week the latest incarnation of the Animal Welfare Sentencing bill is entering the house again for a further reading prior to entering the Lords. Now I want to highlight this because this particular bill could give us at the very least a potential avenue to attach Pet Theft Reform sentencing guidelines too. Now to begin with Animal Welfare sentencing in the UK needs to align with other western countries.

Now the guidance within this new bill would also make a particular focus on the changing digital world, paying a focus to where the offender films themselves committing the offence. This is both critical to allow social media platform and users to report and identify abusers which the police can then used as further evidence as an “aggravating factor”. Now for offenders who are caught on camera, this would not be the case but the differentiation of the attitudes of those knowingly committing the offence needs to be recognised and actioned accordingly. It was cited that the RSPCA identified that the filming of animal abuse had risen from 2019 and this needs to be apart of any reforms as it offers a way we can stop the open sharing of these acts of abuse on social media channels. It would also be worth addressing here that whilst points were made in the regard to recording the bill a potential area that needs further refining is the circulation and sharing of this content. Those found to be knowingly sharing this type of media need some form of penalty to act as a deterrent otherwise the work taken to seek justice against the abuser will be lessened by the circulation of the content. My hope is this will be addressed by the Government White Papers at online harms more broadly and that animal abuse is featured specifically.

Now whilst I would add here that when this issue was debated cross-party MPs both advocated for the bill to have amendments which at the very least would use the same sentencing guidelines as seen with robbery. However, it was pointed out by Tom Hunt the MP for Ipswich that at times these guidelines do not echo the sentiments of the public. He particularly cites Pet Theft here and the reason the call for reform is still needed in this case is because of the view that these sentencing guidelines give to the courts they treat the animal as an object and not in a specific way under the law. If the animal was treated specifically under the law it would provide us the general public and animal owners with the knowledge that those who commit these offences and also knowingly abuse someones beloved pet when they are stolen but that justice will be enacted. A further amendment to this bill would also make acts that are often associated with other crimes or forms of abuse against animals such as mutilation which are associated with dogfighting or baiting. These harsher sentences would enable our justice system to empower the police to protect our animals and tackle the criminal gangs perpetuating revenue from animal abuse.

A proposal presented to increase the effectiveness of the bill as well as making sure that animals are treated fairly and evenly not establishing systems where cruelty to domestic animals is targeted under this bill but not wild animals. The RSPCA and various other charities can report how acts of cruelty against wildlife can arguably be as severe as what we see in companion animals and no less worth safeguarding. Points which were raised that in particular areas that then targeted wildlife, in particular, were even less adequate than that which the bill seeks to rectify. The MPs however, do rightly point out to protect pets a subsequent amendment for wild animals may need to be included at a later point. It is therefore positive to see support for further animal rights reform in national politics.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2622/publications

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-01/0014/200014.pdf

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/section/4