Animal Cruelty: Sentencing

Ian Paisley Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

Nine hundred years before Christ, the prophet Solomon wrote the instructive and very apt words:

“A righteous man regards the life of his beast.”

Unfortunately, today we have a situation where we see that regard for a beast has been replaced by brutal and depraved wickedness against animals. Indeed, the startling report that the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has brought before us by stops us in our tracks, by showing us how wicked some people can be.

In Northern Ireland, since 2012 4,000 cases of animal cruelty have been reported and investigated by the authorities every year. Think of that—since 2012, there have been 16,000 incidences of cruelty against animals in Northern Ireland. However, less than 120 cases are brought before the courts annually. In a week when it is fashionable to criticise the judiciary, and I will criticise the judiciary in this regard, we see that we have a record of lenient sentencing, even in the trailblazing Northern Ireland; I am glad that the hon. Member talked about Northern Ireland in that way.

In fact, between 2012 and 2014, there were 114 convictions for animal cruelty in Northern Ireland, but only 15 of them resulted in custodial sentences. They were for pretty horrible cases. I do not want to go into the details, but in one instance a judge said in his summing up that he had seen

“one of the vilest examples of premeditated abuse”

of animals ever produced in Northern Ireland, when a cat was torn to pieces by fighting dogs. What sentence did that judge decide to hand down in that case in Northern Ireland? Wait for it—it was a sentence of six months, suspended. That was utterly pathetic. In my constituency, a 46-year-old man allowed his dog to starve to death and he received a non-custodial sentence and a stunning fine of £274.

Unfortunately, a message has been sent out by the judiciary that people can get away with perverse wickedness against animals, and that has got to stop. So what have we got to do? I hope that the Minister looks at the example of Northern Ireland and introduces four or five key measures. I agree that a register must be put in place. We have the perverse situation where I could be convicted today of abusing or hurting an animal and so long as it is not widely reported, the very next day I can go to a pet shop or a dog dealer and procure another animal to torture and to be inhumane towards. That is wrong; only a register will start to resolve that particular issue.

Secondly, we need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. I welcome the fact that in Northern Ireland we have increased the fines and sentences that can be imposed, but those matters have not yet been tested and I wait eagerly for the first test in a court of law.

We have the perverse situation whereby if I am careless with my animal and it fouls on a pavement I can be given an £80 fine, but there are examples of £200 fines for people who have starved their animals to death. That is wrong; it must change, and change dramatically. We need a minimum fines system, whereby any act of animal cruelty will receive a minimum fine of £1,000. That system should be introduced, as well as a register.

We also need the ability to review sentences. The hon. Member for Redcar made it clear that the case she referred to had gone to a magistrates court. If she had wanted that sentence to be reviewed, of course she would have been told by the Director of Public Prosecution and the Attorney General that their hands were tied. We need to have a system whereby such cases can be reviewed. Actually, a call for that system to be introduced in Northern Ireland was made just yesterday. The Agriculture Minister has recommended that that change in the law should be made and I eagerly anticipate its being made; I hope that it is made quickly.

Maximum sentences in England should also be increased, in line with Northern Ireland. It is very unusual for me to say that; it is normally the other way round. It is important that the sentencing issue is addressed.

There are some good examples of work being done, but there are many other openings for people to abuse animals. For example, if someone can go on to Gumtree and buy a pet, that is wrong. That opens the way for cruelty and such gaps in the law must be addressed.

I know that the Minister is eager to do something about this issue; I know that he is willing to do it; and I hope that he will pick up on some of the examples that have been given today. I also hope that we can see a better, fairer place, where we have a righteous regard for our beasts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gyimah]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will come on to the six-month point in a second, but on the five-year point, a maximum five-year sentence would be the equivalent of a sentence for gross bodily harm of a human being. Those are serious offences, and we do not have to stand back. The penalties need to work across the board. In other words, if we increase the penalty to five years in line with GBH, we will have to look at sentencing across the board. That is something the Government need to do to ensure consistency in the criminal law, which is important. As far as Scotland is concerned, again this is a devolved matter.

As is often said, however, prevention is better than cure. To that end, some animal welfare organisations help educate youngsters in animal welfare. I should mention the role of the RSPCA, as other Members have. It does great work in schools. Blue Cross, too, works in schools with children to help them become informed, responsible and active citizens. It is interesting to note from my research for the debate that the RSPCA has been campaigning for and enforcing animal welfare legislation for nearly 200 years. In that time the organisation has built huge expertise in animal welfare. It of course not only prosecutes people, but provides advice to owners about how to look after their animals properly. The Government recognise that tremendous effort, and it is to the credit of the RSPCA that it has improved the lives of many animals.

I am, however, aware of horrible cases, some of which have been mentioned today, specifically the one involving the Frankish brothers and their pet bulldog. I hope that Members appreciate that I am unable to respond specifically on the details of that case, but many people consider the penalty to have been too lenient. On that point, I would pick up on another issue that was raised: how we deal with unduly lenient sentencing. The Attorney General refers some sentences he considers unduly lenient to the Court of Appeal to reconsider. Those are summary-only offences and so animal cruelty is not currently within that scheme. That includes assault on humans and common assault, which are also not within the scheme. The Government are considering the scope of the scheme and how to implement our 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to expand it.

On sentencing, we should remember that it is a matter for our independent courts. The court is best placed to decide on the appropriate penalty for an offence because it is in possession of the full facts of the case, many of which might not be reported in the newspapers. When deciding what sentence to impose within the maximum limits available, the courts are required to take account of all the circumstances of an offender, as well as mitigating and aggravating factors.

On maximum penalties, it is worth stressing that while sentencing is a matter for the courts, setting the framework that the courts work within is a matter for Parliament, as we all know as legislators. The maximum sentence of six months’ imprisonment for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal was set by Parliament to cover the most serious imaginable behaviours for that specific offence. It was only last year that the maximum fine for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal was raised from £20,000 to an unlimited fine, although I note the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar that in imposing that fine, the courts often means-test it to make sure that it is payable. I am aware of that nuance.

[Ian Paisley]

Is the Minister saying that as a rule of thumb a sentence against animal cruelty must be lower than a sentence imposed for human cruelty?

[Mr Gyimah]

Not at all. On the contrary, what I was saying is that any change in sentencing in one part of the law has to be made consistent across the entire criminal justice system. If there were a sentence of five years, we would need to look at other offences of a similar nature that have a five-year sentence to make sure that there is consistency. My point is about consistency in criminal law rather than about distinguishing between one form of cruelty and another.

The Government recognise that maximum penalties should be set to allow the courts to respond appropriately to the full range of cases that they are likely to face—my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made that point. It is worth looking at some data. In 2015, 614 people were sentenced for the offence of causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering to an animal. The average custodial sentence was nearly three and a half months. If judges are not going up to the maximum six months, there is a question whether the issue is with the maximum sentence length or the courts are finding the current sentencing powers inadequate or restrictive in dealing with those cases. We have to look at that.

The maximum penalty for animal cruelty offences is under review. I assure the hon. Member for Redcar that we are also looking at that very closely in the context of broader criminal law. We do not want to create anomalies with other criminal offences. It is worth bearing in mind that the offence of common assault also has a maximum penalty of six months. In other words, if we were going to make a change here, we would have to look at the area of common assault as well.

It would be contrary to our system of justice simply to impose the maximum penalty, regardless of the circumstances, for any offence. Making all sentences the same would remove the courts’ ability to single out and highlight the more serious cases with more serious sentences. In short, prescribing sentences in that way could lead to injustices that we would want to avoid.

The sentencing guidelines for animal cruelty offences are issued by the independent Sentencing Council, as the House is aware. The council has recently consulted on revised guidelines for sentencing in the magistrates courts, which includes animal cruelty offences. The revised guidelines are designed to highlight the aggravating factors that are particular to those offences. That will assist magistrates in identifying the most serious cases that will in turn deserve longer sentences. Throughout the development of the guidelines, the council worked closely with the RSPCA and is now reviewing consultation responses and developing definitive new guidelines, which it intends to implement in May next year.

A point was made about a register for animal abusers, to prevent them from obtaining animals in the first place. DEFRA has no plans to introduce an animal abusers register. I do not consider it appropriate or necessarily proportionate, because we would then expect pet vendors and animal rehoming centres to check the details of all prospective animal owners. That would be quite an onerous approach.