Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Black of Brentwood Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

316: After Clause 86, insert the following new Clause—
“Animal sexual abuse(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended in accordance with subsection (2).(2) For section 69 (intercourse with an animal) substitute—“69 Animal sexual abuse(1) A person commits an offence of animal sexual abuse if they—(a) intentionally engage in sexual activity with an animal, whether penetrative or non-penetrative,(b) cause, coerce or permit another person (including a child) to engage in such activity with an animal, or(c) cause, coerce or permit an animal to be used for the purpose of sexual gratification, whether their own or another’swhether that animal is living or dead.(2) For the purposes of this section, “sexual activity” includes—(a) penetration, or an attempt to penetrate the vagina or anus by a penis or other body part as well as by the use of objects;(b) sexual touching or stimulation of an animal;(c) the sexual stimulation of a person through contact with an animal;(d) any other act undertaken for the purpose of sexual gratification of a person involving or directed at an animal.(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or to a fine, or both;(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the animal concerned and any dependent offspring, including—(a) depriving the offender of ownership of the animal and for its disposal, including by sale, gift, rehoming or destruction;(b) appointing a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order.(5) The court may also make an order under this section (a “disqualification order”) in the terms set out in section 34(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, prohibiting the offender from one or more of the following—(a) owning animals;(b) keeping animals;(c) participating in the keeping of animals;(d) being party to an arrangement under which they are entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept;(e) dealing in animals;(f) transporting animals.(6) A disqualification order under subsection (5)—(a) must specify the period for which it has effect, including for life, and(b) shall be treated for all purposes as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. (7) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under this section may also order that the offender be subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of this Act.(8) Where a court decides not to make an order under subsection (4), (5) or (7) in relation to an offender, it must—(a) give its reasons for the decision in open court, and(b) if it is a magistrates’ court, cause them to be entered in the register of its proceedings.”.(3) The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 is amended as follows.(4) In section 63 (extreme pornographic images), omit subsection (7)(d) and insert—“(d) a person engaging in sexual activity with an animal whether dead or alive, whether penetrative or non-penetrative,”.(5) In section 67(5)(a) (penalties etc. for extreme pornographic images), after “63(7)(a)” omit “or (b)” and insert “, (b) or (d)”.(6) After section 67(5), insert—“(6) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 63(7)(d), the court may make such order as it thinks fit with respect to the animal concerned and any dependent offspring, including—(a) depriving the offender of ownership of the animal and for its disposal, including by sale, gift, rehoming or destruction;(b) appointing a person to carry out, or arrange for the carrying out of, the order.(7) The court may also make an order in relation to an offence under section 63(7)(d) (a “disqualification order”) in the terms set out in section 34(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, prohibiting the offender from one or more of the following—(a) owning animals;(b) keeping animals;(c) participating in the keeping of animals;(d) being party to an arrangement under which they are entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept;(e) dealing in animals;(f) transporting animals.(8) A disqualification order under subsection (7)—(a) must specify the period for which it has effect, including for life, and(b) shall be treated for all purposes as if made under section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.(9) A court by or before which a person is convicted of an offence under section 63(7)(d) may also order that the offender be subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.(10) Where a court decides not to make an order under subsection (6), (7) or (9) in relation to an offender, it must—(a) give its reasons for the decision in open court, and(b) if it is a magistrates' court, cause them to be entered in the register of its proceedings.”.(7) In section 34(10) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, at end insert, “and section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and section 67(7) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment expands and clarifies two distinct but related offences: 1. Animal sexual abuse offences – covering direct acts of sexual abuse or exploitation of animals; and 2. Offences involving images of animal sexual abuse – covering the creation, possession, and distribution of extreme pornographic material depicting sexual acts with animals.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 316 stands in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Goddard of Stockport and Lord Trees, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. They are all passionate supporters of animal welfare and I have had the pleasure of working with them on a number of important issues in the past. I am delighted to be able to do so again and thank them for their support. I am very grateful to the Animal Related Crime Working Group of the Chartered Society of Forensic Sciences for all the work it has done on this subject, along with other animal welfare charities including Cats Protection and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home.

Animal sexual abuse—to which, with apologies to my good friends at the Advertising Standards Authority, I will for ease refer to as ASA—is not an easy subject to address. It takes us to some dark places, evil crimes and some of the most depraved aspects of humanity. But it is vital that we discuss it in the context of this important Bill and take the opportunity to clarify and toughen the law.

We should do so in part because of the animal welfare issues. Animals subject to ASA often suffer terrible injuries or die. The lives of those that survive are damaged and they are scared and alone, with the perpetrators of these wicked crimes often those who should be caring for them. To harm a defenceless animal is one of the most terrible acts of cruelty imaginable and deserves to be dealt with by deploying the full force of the law. But it would be quite wrong to think of this as just a niche animal welfare matter, crucial though that is. The unpalatable and often unspoken truth is that this is a far more widespread issue about safeguarding, sitting four-square at the intersection of sexual offending, child protection, coercive control and domestic abuse.

Before I come on to the position of the law and why and how it needs to change, it is crucial to set out the background, because the evidence of the links between ASA and other serious offending, often involving children, is deeply disturbing. While evidence from the UK is sparse because of the difficulty of collecting data under current legislation, international studies underline the seriousness of the issues involved. A major study of ASA arrests over four decades in the United States found that nearly a third of animal sex offenders had also sexually offended against children and adults. Over half had prior or subsequent criminal records for human sexual abuse, ASA, interpersonal violence or related offences. A scoping review in 2024 found similarly consistent evidence that animal cruelty frequently co-occurs with intimate partner violence and child maltreatment, reinforcing the point that ASA is often part of a wider pattern of family violence.

Here in the UK, the charity Naturewatch Foundation has analysed prosecutions under Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which covers the possession of extreme pornographic images. It found that in the two years of 2019 and 2020, on 73% of occasions where child sex abuse had occurred, ASA was present in the same case. Its written evidence to an inquiry by the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee summarises research showing that animal abuse occurs in around half of households that are affected by domestic abuse where there is also an animal on the premises. In one study, 71% of domestic abuse victims reported that the perpetrator also abused pets. That is sickening.

There are significant concerns regarding the use of extreme pornography, which has already been widely debated in Committee and which I have discussed with my noble friend Lady Bertin, who is supportive of this amendment. Here, a study reviewing FoI data provided by police forces across England and Wales and by the CPS found that nearly three quarters of extreme pornography cases involved ASA.

This issue is therefore clearly not just one about animal welfare, vital though that is. As a predictor offence, a red flag for broader sexual and domestic offending, it is about serious harm to often very vulnerable groups of people, and the law is currently not dealing with it effectively or comprehensively, or with the gravity it deserves. That has to change, which is why I have brought this amendment forward. To be legislating as we are on sexual offending and public protection without addressing these known gaps on ASA would be a serious missed opportunity, and in my view negligent on our behalf. It fits naturally with the structure of the Bill, as Part 5 deals with sexual offending, digital harms, sentencing and offender management, all covered by this amendment.

Let me say a word about the law as it stands. Currently, there is no clearly defined crime in law of animal sexual abuse, including under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Offences are covered by two separate pieces of legislation. Section 69 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 relates to intercourse with an animal, but is limited in scope, covering only penile penetration. The maximum sentence is two years’ imprisonment on indictment. In the last full year, according to figures that the Minister kindly let me have in reply to a Written Question, there were no cases proceeded against and only one the year before. Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 covers the possession of extreme pornographic images. These cover acts of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, whether dead or alive, and non-consensual penetration of a person’s vagina or anus by an animal.

In short, existing legislation is fragmented, imprecise, ineffective and incomplete. It is far too narrowly focused, failing adequately to reflect the range of behaviours encountered in modern police investigations, with many sexual acts falling outside of scope. Image-based offences are prosecuted under legislation designed for a very different digital age from the one we live in. All that causes real problems for the police, the CPS and the courts, which do not have the certainty and powers to investigate, prosecute and sentence. As a result, far too many heinous crimes are inevitably going unpunished. Even more importantly, far too many vulnerable people are being left at risk of sexual offences or domestic abuse because red flags and predictor offences were not registered and managed properly.

To deal with all this, my amendment would create two linked offences. First, it would create a comprehensive offence of animal sexual abuse, which would cover penetrative and non-penetrative sexual acts, including acts committed for sexual gratification whether or not there is physical penetration, and situations where children or others are involved or made to witness the abuse. The maximum penalty would be five years’ imprisonment, which is proportionate to the seriousness of the conduct and aligned with comparable sexual offences.

The second is a separate offence relating to images of ASA in line with the structure and sentencing framework of Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, carrying a maximum of three years’ imprisonment. This would close the gap where images of ASA sit at the margins of extreme pornography, despite clear overlap in practice with child sexual abuse material.

The amendment would also equip the courts with: safeguarding tools that are already familiar in other sexual offending contexts; disqualification orders under Section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, preventing future ownership or control of animals where appropriate; deprivation and disposal powers in respect of animals used in the commission of the offence; and the application of the notification requirements of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, so that the most serious offences can be monitored in the same way as other sexual offenders. All those would be discretionary—rightly preserving judicial flexibility—but crucially, they would ensure that, when the courts identify a pattern of offending, they have the tools they need to manage the risk to children, partners and animals.

The heart of the amendment, which is based on peer-reviewed research and evidence to Parliament, is about improving protection for both animals and vulnerable people. In line with existing sentencing and notification frameworks, it would ensure that those who commit these heinous offences can be properly prosecuted, monitored and managed. It would prevent so much suffering. I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. If the Government have any concerns about the wording, perhaps the Minister will be able to work with me and colleagues across the Committee to ensure we achieve robust modern animal sexual abuse provisions and include them in the Bill.

Finally, I will briefly say a few words about Amendments 316ZA to 316ZE, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, from whom we will hear in a moment. I know that he is a great champion of animal welfare, and it has been a pleasure to work with him in the past on important legislation. He is a great campaigner and champion. I know that he agrees with me on the principles involved here and the substance of the amendment; the issue is simply about terminology and the use of the word “bestiality”. He raises an important point, and I am glad that we will have the opportunity briefly to discuss it.

From my own discussions, I understand that the veterinary forensic and safeguarding communities have very deliberately moved away from the term in favour of “animal sexual abuse”, for a number of reasons. First, and most importantly, because of the evidence firmly establishing the links between ASA and the abuse of children, using the language of sexual abuse ensures that those shared risks are recognised consistently across disciplines and that we are talking about these behaviours in a way that supports safeguarding. Secondly, “bestiality”, sadly, is frequently misunderstood as pertaining only to farmed animals; in reality, we see such offending across a range of species, including companion animals, fish and even reptiles and cephalopods. The terminology of ASA reflects that wider reality. On those points, I beg to move.

Amendment 316ZA (to Amendment 316)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is always good to move an amendment when there is a unanimity of view across the Committee; it does not happen to me terribly often. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, both for reminding us of the wise words of my noble friend Lord Lucas—that we do not get to talk about this horrible issue very often so, when we do, we need to make sure that we take the opportunity to tighten the law where necessary—and for his suggestions on the wording of the clause, which I will look at. His point about a portmanteau definition is a very good one.

I am grateful to the Minister for the offer of a meeting on this. I would like to take her up on it, perhaps with colleagues from across the Committee. I do not think it is satisfactory that the law is a patchwork and one has to take an overall view of it to ensure that these terrible offences are properly covered. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made is right: the scope of the existing law is far too limited to capture the whole range of offences that are taking place, particularly online. Much of this law was written at a time before that was happening. So I would like to come and see the noble Baroness, perhaps with some of the charities involved, to talk further about this and what might be done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 316 withdrawn.