Animal Cruelty and Domestic Abuse

Vikki Slade Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker and his Deputies for allowing me time for this debate. G. K. Chesterton said that

“cruelty is, perhaps, the worst kind of sin”,

and cruelty comes in many forms, but when it begins with cruelty to animals, which then becomes cruelty to people, it becomes barbaric. “Barbarism” is the word that came to my mind when I was first approached by my constituent Annette Bramley, who is in the Gallery this evening. She described to me the way that her beloved daughter, Holly, was murdered. “Courage” is another word that occurs to me, for Annette’s courage, which has led us here today in her ceaseless campaign to honour Holly by ensuring that future tragedies of that kind do not occur, is notable and admirable. It inspires me and has inspired many others.

Annette’s grief at the loss of her daughter is compounded by the appalling way that her daughter was killed by the worthless, wicked husband who murdered her. It came after years of cruelty towards her pets. Holly was just 26 years of age when she died in 2023, but she and her pets had been subjected to years of cruelty before that, involving both physical cruelty to those animals, and the coercive control associated with that towards Holly. The harm that her husband inflicted on animals served to frighten, torture, and control Holly. That vile man killed the family pets—the hamsters, a puppy and so on—in ways that are unimaginably wicked. In common with so many abusers, he exploited her love for animals and used that against her. Eventually, as is the case so often, the violence towards the animals turned into violence towards Holly.

Subsequently convicted and sentenced, Nicholas Metson, the man concerned, had previously been reported to the police for extreme cruelty towards pets. The violent behaviour did not first appear on the fatal day that Holly died—there were warning signs of animal cruelty for years before. Annette says that if she had known for how long he had been hurting the animals, and so Holly, she could have stopped what happened to her daughter.

Annette’s courageous campaign since has been for what she calls, as I call it today, Holly’s law, a national register of those guilty of animal cruelty to help prevent violence against women. She wants to help others who are suffering similarly, and so has proposed Holly’s law. It would create a kind of register so that the police would know about animal abuse convictions when responding to reports of domestic abuse. I strongly support this.

Better tracking and collecting of data on animal abusers can surely help in the campaign against domestic abuse, in addition to preventing further abuses of beloved pets. The correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence is proven, persuasive and undeniable. Domestic abuse charities have long been clear that there is a real and frightening link between the two. It stands to reason that people who are abusive to other people surely will not feel any guilt or doubts about harming animals in the same way.

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals cites research that shows that 71% of domestic abuse victims report threats towards their pets. In my home county of Lincolnshire, the police revealed that animal abuse was reported in 3,000 domestic abuse incidents over just three years. The National Centre for Domestic Violence found that 64,000 civil protection order witness statements refer to the link between animal abuse and domestic abuse. The RSPCA and NSPCA have both highlighted that many domestic abuse victims report that their pets have also been abused, tortured or killed.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap in the system at the moment, in that abusers can retain legal ownership of those animals and it becomes difficult for the victim to get hold of their animals? Animal rescue charities are reporting that animals are left for long periods in their care while cases go back and forth, often leaving animals unable to be rehomed at the end of a traumatic case?

[Sir John Hayes]

Both those points are salient, as is the fear that people have of leaving the relationship because of what might happen to the animals. This is used as a means of control, but the animals and the individuals concerned—the people, the owners—become frightened, and in the end the animals become neglected, as the hon. Lady has described, so there is a series of correlations. I know the Government are aware of this, and I shall say why in a second, but now is the time for action.

We know that an early warning sign of an abusive partner is the way that they treat pets, as it is one of the questions asked in the domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment—the DASH—that is routinely used by the police across the UK to determine a victim’s risk. Research undertaken by Refuge4Pets, which works with Dogs Trust, found that almost nine in 10 households who experienced domestic abuse have said that their animals were abused first. In 49% of those cases, animals were killed by the abuser. It is not just neglect or cruelty—it is the death of animals, alongside the death of people.

A study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and Northeastern University found that animal abusers are five times as likely to also harm other humans. Some 70% of people who committed animal abuse also had criminal records that included crimes of violence, property, drugs or disorderly behaviour. In 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the perpetrator also abused animals. Some 97% of domestic abuse professionals encountered cases of pets being harmed as coercion.

In 49% of those cases, the animals died, as they did in the case of Holly’s pets. So the correlation between animal abuse and domestic abuse is crystal clear.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the campaign, which has been notable; I thank him. This is about threat and risk. Where threat becomes apparent, risk can be mitigated. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and I spend a lot of our lives talking about threat and risk in respect of national security, and we have studied those matters closely over a long time. It is absolutely true that the early identification of the kind of risks that the hon. Gentleman describes can prevent their escalation. That is essentially what we are calling on the Government to do.

The Government want to do more on domestic abuse, and they have said that—I shall say a little more about that in a moment or two. The correlation, as I have described it, is clear; we now need to decide what we are going to do about it. We can speak endlessly about the cases, which do not amount just to this particular case, tragic though it is and personal though it is to me and my constituent. Annette wants to protect other people. That is her mission—to prevent this happening to another mother, another family, another victim.

The problem is that animal cruelty is regarded as an animal welfare matter, quite separate from human safeguarding. This is the challenge for the Government. It is clear that there is a gap in the way that the Government treat these serious problems, though they recognise that both are just that—serious. Earlier this year, Annette and I met the then Minister for safeguarding, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), to make the case for a potential animal abuse register. I put on the record how well the hon. Member responded to my request for the meeting and how she conducted that meeting. She made my constituent feel valued, listened carefully to what we both said, and committed to Home Office work, which, again, I shall say a little more about in a few moments.

[Vikki Slade]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap in the safeguarding legislation, in that sexual offences against animals do not lead to someone going on to the sex offenders’ register, when there is clearly an abuse of power in those cases?

[Sir John Hayes]

That is a pertinent intervention, because one of my colleagues in the House of Lords has taken up that very issue. It is a parallel issue, but a related one. Although it is a separate matter, it should certainly be taken into account in the work that the Home Office is doing. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising it.

To give credit to Ministers, work is ongoing in respect of domestic abuse statutory guidance and controlling and coercive behaviour statutory guidance. Will the Minister update the House on that work, and particularly on when it will be completed? The Minister on the Treasury Bench probably knows this, but I was on the Front Bench for my party for 19 years consecutively, and was a Minister in countless Departments; I just say to her that it is critical that very strict timetables are set. Ministers must demand of their officials that things will be done within limits and to a pre-agreed schedule. If they do not, then, with the best will in the world—and this is not about a lack of will—these things often drift. Please can we therefore have an update and some real assurances about when this is going to happen?

We may end up with a form of animal protection disclosure scheme that allows the police to disclose an individual’s history of animal cruelty and convictions to relevant organisations. It would be modelled on Clare’s law—the domestic violence disclosure scheme—and would operate under the common law duty of police disclosure. Under Clare’s law, as the Minister will know, after making an initial application, the information must be provided within 28 days. At present, UK animal cruelty convictions are recorded on the police national database, but police face the challenge of fragmented information sharing. A co-ordinated approach must be possible, and I hope the Minister can set out details of how that might work.

We know, too, that only 26 of 43 police forces reported that their mandated training on coercion covers the involvement of pets in domestic abuse. Can the Minister clarify whether that could be made mandatory for all forces? You will understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, the difference between guidance and statutory guidance, and this may be a case where statutory guidance is necessary. Indeed, just this week, I raised this issue on the Floor of the House with the Minister for Victims and Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). She committed to meet me to move things forward.

The US state of Tennessee introduced an animal abuse register in 2016. It is a public register listing convictions, with offenders remaining on it for five years in the case of persistent offenders. There are obviously concerns about having a public register, but I wonder what lessons might be learned from the US, given that acts of cruelty against animals have been tracked by the FBI since 2016 in the same way as arson, burglary, assault and even homicide. That has allowed police to monitor and tackle the extent of animal neglect, torture and other abuse. It may be that we can indeed learn lessons on best practice from elsewhere.

Finally, I will mention the example of the convicted rapist Russell Brand, which was raised in the Chamber by the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) earlier this week and again today. We now know of Brand’s shocking offences against women, which lasted for so long, but it is an example of his cruelty to animals that is perhaps particularly relevant to this debate. Brand’s account in a book—if you can call it that—of his history of abuse of his pet dog was surely a warning sign of what was to come. When designing policy, we must be cognisant of ensuring that relevant information, including admissions and other intelligence where appropriate—not just convictions—can be considered. Being able to consider such information is critical, because not all inquiries into animal cruelty lead to convictions. That is one of the problems we face, and addressing it needs to be built into the response to my call for Holly’s law.

This matter has significant cross-party support. I have received support from Members in all parts of this House, and a letter I sent to the Leader of the House seeking a debate on this matter attracted nearly 60 signatures from MPs of all political colours. Annette Bramley’s campaign for Holly’s law has caught the imagination precisely because it is just plain common sense. Her online petition has attracted more than 60,000 signatures. Annette’s campaign is supported by the charity Domestic Abuse Alliance, which has said that it:

“supports initiatives like Holly’s Law that address the overlapping harms seen in abusive households”.

I would like to add that it also has the strong support of my local paper, the Lincolnshire Free Press, and I pay tribute to the reporter Jenny Beake, who has been a great champion of Annette and our campaign. The campaign is also supported by the Naturewatch Foundation, a charity dedicated to ending animal cruelty, which argues that animal abuse is often linked to coercive control and escalating violence, but is not always identified as such within police disclosures.

My mission is to bring justice for my constituent and to make Holly’s law a reality. I will do all I can to help prevent what happened to Annette’s daughter from ever happening again, for as Edmund Burke said:

“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”