From bark to bite: Reforming the enforcement of animal protection law in the UK

Damir Kayani, Cambridge law graduate and ICCA Bar Course student, argues for enforcement reforms to animal rights law

Animal protection laws, provide an essential, moral, legal framework, designed to prevent animal cruelty and exploitation and ensure animal welfare, needs and interests are recognised and safeguarded. However, despite the existence of this intricate, legislative regime, the continued prevalence of animal abuse and neglect in the UK reveals the unsettling reality, that an “effective, structured, fair and integrated system of animal welfare surveillance and enforcement is lacking”.

Indeed, the effort to enforce animal protection has been primarily thwarted by a severe lack of funding, training and resources afforded to fragmented, enforcing bodies, coupled with the issue of LAs (local authorities) inadvertently exacerbating harm to animals by exercising judicial powers in line with sections 18 and 20 of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 2006 .

Consequently, animal welfare legislation risks operating merely as an aspirational framework, rather than as an effective, legal mechanism, that operates to prevent and deter harm and fulfil the Parliamentary promise of ensuring animal welfare. Therefore, this article will additionally consider the practical reformative measures that the State must urgently implement, to remedy the enforcement crisis that continues to undermine animal protection; thereby ensuring the regime possesses both ‘bark and bite’.

Funding, resources and specialist expertise

According to The Animal Law Foundation’s 2024 Report, investigating animal welfare law enforcement, “it is an unavoidable reality that effective enforcement of any law requires adequate resourcing”. Despite this, enforcing bodies, primarily LAs, have long endured significant cuts to funding and resources, significantly impairing their ability to undertake inspections and investigations; crippling the enforcement regime. Indeed, the House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reported in 2024, “central government funding for local authorities fell… by over 50% between 2010–11 and 2020–21”; with the remaining funding being distributed to other areas, perceived by police and autonomous LAs to be more important than animal welfare enforcement. This marginalisation of animal welfare is also echoed in the failure of LAs to ensure an arsenal of suitably trained animal welfare officers with specialist training in matters that are not merely confined to investigations with the scope of the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations (LAIA) 2018. Indeed, as the House of Commons: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee further report only “53% of LAs in England have at least one animal welfare officer”, illustrating a system unwilling to invest in specialist teams and sufficient training, to deter and punish offenders.

Creating a unified enforcement structure

A practical solution to this lack of expertise may be to adopt the successful Welsh model of a five-year animal welfare plan, aiming to improve the qualifications and expertise of LA officers and establishing senior intelligence officers to support LAs. The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare (APGAW) and Animal Sentience Committee (ASC) share in this mission, advising the establishment of regional forums to share resources, information and intelligence, the centralisation of animal welfare training and access for LAs to a dedicated animal welfare officer.

However, it may be advisable to go even further: creating an authoritative body responsible for training officers and coordinating animal protection investigations and prosecutions that works in collaboration with the multiple, fragmented governmental organisations including Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA), Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Animals in Science Regulation Unit (ASRU) and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). Thus, creating State oversight, consistency and unification of the numerous enforcing bodies’ expertise, additionally offering a central body for reports to be filed. Indeed, the RSPCA has noted they feel increasingly “ill-equipped to take on [cases] through private prosecution”, suggesting unification and a greater role of the State will be a useful measure. The widespread implementation of any of these unifying measures, crucially coupled with increased funding, would aim to thwart a postcode lottery of enforcement. Thus, creating a more united, consistent and specialist approach to animal protection and allowing LAs to achieve their statutory objectives under not only UK legislation but also assimilated EU regulations, including Regulation (EU) 2017/625. Article 78 of this provides for adequate financial resources to be made available to authorities to regulate and enforce the law.

Section 18 and section 20 enforcement powers

However, it is the exercise of enforcement powers under section 18(5), AWA 2006 that have been most severely affected by declining funds and resources, where select personnel, with reasonable belief and veterinary certification that a protected animal is suffering or likely suffer, can take immediate steps to alleviate the animal’s suffering. These steps usually include taking the animal into possession, and the enforcing body seeking a section 20 order from the Magistrates Court, mandating specified conditions under section 20(1), AWA 2006.

Whilst these powers are positive, the combination of the expense of boarding animals and the high cost of legal proceedings, both exacerbated by the severe court backlog, has left poorly funded LAs struggling to maintain enthusiasm to initiate proceedings. Indeed, LAs are forced to bear all costs of animals obtained via section 18 powers, which may be in their care awaiting section 20 hearings for prolonged periods of time due to the vast court backlog, with reports of several cases costing councils over £100,000 per case. This causing further harm to animals due to the inability of the LA to offer complete treatment plans, routine husbandry procedures before a section 20 order and can “negatively impact [animals] socialisation and behaviourism”. Moreover, current legislation across the UK, does not prevent those under investigation from purchasing and keeping animals while their cases are delayed in court. This legal loophole seemingly undermining the enforcement regime and blunting its ability to deter offenders.

Boarding costs and court delays

In addition, whilst designed to allow for extraction of animals to less distressing environments, section 18(5) powers have in reality had the opposite effect, due to insufficient and expensive boarding premises. As the Worcestershire Regulatory Services reported, the cost to the LA for kennelling one dog, for a month was £68,000, with other “local authorities… [are] being forced to put dogs to sleep because of lack of capacity and funding”. A partial solution to these difficulties is for the government to set out an untouchable, minimum resource allocation for animal welfare enforcement activities in LAs and other agencies, ensuring the regime can function to an acceptable standard. It is more difficult to simply cure the court backlog, which is the root cause for rising costs to LAs for boarding animals; with those animals subject to a contested section 20 hearing marooned in ‘purgatory’ for prolonged periods, causing intense distress. However, placing a duty on courts to hold a section 20 hearing “within a maximum of 182 days” is a welcome solution, to ensure a clear procedural timeline that benefits both animals and LAs.

Reforming ownership and penalty procedures

Similarly, England and Wales could seek to amend legislation, mirroring the AWPPA (Scotland) Act 2020, where ownership would be transferred immediately after section 18 powers are exercised, keeping cases out of court and instead placing a duty on owners to appeal the matter at court. With any appeal required to be lodged within 21 days and heard by a court within 182 days; decreasing court time and costs to LAs. Whilst emergency funding for boarding seized animals may be useful in the short term, there must be lasting change implemented to ensure officers are not deterred from enforcing animal protection laws. Indeed, this out of court strategy has already started to be implemented via the recent introduction of Fixed Penalty Notices under the A(PN)A, which allow for enforcing bodies to administer fines up to £5000 for a wide scale of offences. In addition, as recommended by the CTSI, a pre-conviction interim ban on owning and keeping further animals, for those awaiting a section 20 hearing, would restore impact and value to a currently, circumventable enforcement regime; preventing further animal harm and allowing enforcing bodies to identify and target other offenders.

Ultimately, the animal protection enforcement regime has long suffered from a severe lack of funding and resources amongst fragmented, overwhelmed enforcing bodies and ineffective method of prosecution under section 18, AWA 2006 that fails to place animal welfare as the paramount consideration. It is imperative that we do not now simply introduce funding at random, but effect legislative reform and change to ensure a regime managed by skilled, trained professionals that does not deter authorities from enforcing and regulating animal protection.

Damir Kayani is a law graduate from Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge and is currently attending The Inns Of Court College of Advocacy (ICCA). Damir is the founder of the Isonomy Project: a movement advocating for systemic legal change.