New Final report of the review of the implementation of the welfare … · 2017. 12. 19. · animal cruelty. Following the debate Minister O’Neill initiated the Review of the Implementation

Review of the Implementationof the Welfare of Animals Act(Northern Ireland) 2011

Final Report - February 2016

Contents

Executive Summary 1

Section 1: Introduction 11

Section 2:Sentencing 18

Section 3:DeliveryStructures–WildAnimals 26

Section 4:DeliveryStructures–Non-FarmedAnimals 35

Section 5: DeliveryStructures-WildAnimals 48

Section 6:WorkingTogether(FacilitatingEnforcement) 56

Section 7:ServingthePublic 70

Section 8:DogBreedingandOnlinePetSales 81

Section 9:Equines 92

Section 10:OtherIssues 104

Section 11:RelatedIssues 110

Annexes 114

Annex A:Recommendationsassignedtorelevantbodies 115

Annex B:Alistofsecondarylegislationmadeunderthe2011Actand CodesofPracticeforfarmed/non-farmedanimals126

Annex C:TermsofReferencefortheReview 127

Annex D:ListofStakeholdersinvitedtodiscussionsessionsand respondentstotheconsultationontheInterimreport130

Glossary of terms 134

Page1

Review of the Implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011

Executive SummaryOn31March2014theNorthernIrelandAssemblydebatedaMotioncallingforareviewoftheimplementationoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act),particularlytosentencingguidelinesandpractices,toensurethatthemaximumeffectivenesswasbeingbroughttobeartocombatanimalwelfareoffences.MichelleO’Neill,theMinisterfortheDepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment(DARD),supportedtheMotionasshewantedtoseesentencesimposedbytheCourtswhichfitthecrimeandactasadeterrenttoanimalcruelty.FollowingthedebateMinisterO’NeillinitiatedtheReviewoftheImplementationoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(theReview),whichwastakenforwardinconjunctionwiththeDepartmentofJustice(DOJ).

TheReviewheldfiveStakeholderDiscussionSessionsduringlateJulyandearlyAugust2014withawiderangeofstakeholders.Separatediscussionsessionswereheldforeachofthefollowingsectors:farmedanimals;multi-speciesandveterinary;wildanimals;catsanddogs;andequines.Stakeholdersattendingtheseeventsincludedstatutoryorganisations,welfarecharities,rescueandre-homingorganisations,industryrepresentativebodiesandspecialinterestgroups.Feedbackfromthesesessions,aswellaswrittenevidencesubmittedbystakeholders,allowedtheReviewtoconsidertheissuesandgenerateemergingrecommendationswhichprovidedthebasisofanInterimReport,whichwaspublishedbyDARDinFebruary2015.AtwelveweekconsultationperiodfollowedpublicationoftheInterimReport.ConsultationresponseshelpedinformthisFinalReport.

TheReviewconsideredtheimplementationofthe2011Actunderthefollowingsixthemes.

Review of the Implementationof the Welfare of Animals Act

(Northern Ireland) 2011

Page2


Sentencing

StakeholderfeedbackfromtheconsultationontheInterimReportagainexpressedconcernaboutperceivedundulylenientsentencingandaperceivedlackofconsistencyinsentencing.TheReviewcomparedsentencingoptionsavailableinotherjurisdictionsandalsolookedatsentencingguidelines.TheReviewrecommendsincreasingpenaltiesavailableasfollows:

• Summary Offences-Increasethemaximumpenaltyonsummaryconvictionfortheoffencesofcausing unnecessary suffering(section4)andanimal fighting(sections8(1)&8(2))totwelvemonthsimprisonment,afinenotexceeding£20,000,orboth.

• Indictable Offences-Increasethemaximumsentenceforconvictiononindictment,fromtwoyearsimprisonmenttofiveyears.

• TheReviewalsorecommendsthatthefollowingsummaryonlyoffencesbeamendedtomakethemhybrid,whichwillallowthemostseriouscasestobeheardintheCrownCourt:

• Supplying,publishing,showingandpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight;

• Breachingadisqualificationorder;and

• Sellingorpartingwithananimalpendingtheoutcomeofanappealtoadeprivationorder.

• Finally,theReviewrecommendsthattherangeofancillarypost-convictionpowersavailabletothecourtsfollowingconvictionforanimalfightingoffencesbeextendedtobeavailablefollowingaconvictionforsupplying,publishing,showingandpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight.Thiswould,forexample,givecourtsthepowertoconfiscateananimalfromanownerconvictedofsupplyingimagesorvideoofananimalfight,andtodisqualifysuchpersonsfromowningorkeepinganimals.

InadvanceofthisFinalReportbeingpublishedtheAgricultureMinisterMichelleO’NeillandJusticeMinisterDavidFordagreedtoaccepttherecommendation(implementationofwhichrequiresprimarylegislation)toallowittobeintroducedassoonaspossible.TheamendmentisbeingtakenforwardintheDOJJustice(No.2)Bill,whichprovidesanappropriatelegislativevehicleforthetimelyintroductionofthesesentenceincreases.

TheReviewisnotrecommendingtheintroductionofminimumsentencingoraggravatedoffences,assuggestedbysomestakeholders,onthebasisthatminimumsentenceswouldaffecttheJudiciary’sabilitytotakeallfactorsintoaccountwhensentencing,andaggravatedoffenceswouldpotentiallymakeitmoredifficulttoobtainaconvictionduetothenecessitytoprovetheaggravatedelement.

InSeptember2014,theJusticeMinisterannouncedhisintentiontocarryoutawide-rangingreviewofthecurrentUndulyLenientSentencing(ULS)scheme,whichappliestothemostseriouscasesheardintheCrownCourt.Aspartofthatwork,heagreedtoarequestfromMinisterO’Neilltoconsidertheinclusionofanimalwelfareoffencesunderthescheme.

Page3


Toassistthatwork,DARDandDOJcommissionedtheReviewteamtoadviseonthespecificanimalwelfareoffenceswhichshouldbeincludedintheULSschemeandmakerecommendationsaccordingly.

Indoingso,theReviewsoughttoidentifycaseswhichgeneratedahighlevelofpublicconcernandhadthepotentialtodamagepublicconfidenceintheCriminalJusticeSystem.TheReviewalsoexaminedthosecasestoestablishwhethercommonthemesappliedregardingthespecificoffencesinvolved.

TheReviewfoundthattheoffenceofcausing unnecessary suffering (section4),whichisahybridoffence,featuredregularlyinthecasessampledandrecommendsthatitbeaddedtotheULSscheme.

TheReviewalsorecommendsthatanimal fighting offences (section8(1)&(2))shouldbeincludedintheULSscheme.Whiletheseoffencesappearedlessfrequentlyinthecasessampled,theReviewfoundthatcasesofthisnaturegiverisetoconsiderableconcernamongstthepublic,therebywarrantinginclusioninthescheme.DARDandDOJhaveagreedthattheseoffencesareappropriatetobeconsideredundertheULSschemewhichisbeingprogressedbyDOJ.

Delivery Structures - farmed animals

The2011ActprovidesDARDwithenforcementpowerstoensurethattheneedsoffarmedanimalsarebeingmet,thattheyarenotsubjectedtounnecessarysuffering,andthatfarmedanimalsindistressaredealtwithappropriately.EnforcementiscarriedoutbyDARDVeterinaryService(DARDVS).

TheReviewexaminedthecurrentmanagement,administrativeandenforcementarrangementswithinDARDVS.Italsoconsidered:DARDpolicyonthecheckingandenforcementofDisqualificationOrders;theuseofresources;trainingandguidanceforinspectorsandcallhandlers;andwhetherperformancestandardsshouldbeset.

TheReviewrecognisedthattherecentenhancementtotheAnimalandPublicHealthInformationSystem(APHIS)forfarmanimalwelfareworkwillenableDARDVStoproducemorein-depthandusefulmanagementinformationthanwaspreviouslyavailableandwillfacilitatetheuseofnewperformanceindicators.Oncethesystemhasbeddedin,theReviewrecommendsthatallperformancetargetsarereviewed.

TheReviewfoundthatDARDVSlocalmanagerscurrentlyexercisediscretionbeforearranginginspectionsinstigatedbyanyanonymousorpotentiallyvexatiouscalls.Thisisconsideredtobeanappropriateapproach.

StaffintheDARDDirectOfficeshaveresponsibilityformonitoringindividualswithDisqualificationOrders.Targetedinspectionsassociatedwithdisqualifiedherdorflockkeepersarecarriedoutatleastannually,whichisconsistentwiththeapproachtakenbyCouncils.This

Page4


isinadditiontoanyotheroccasionswhenofficialswouldrespondtocomplaintsfrommembersofthepublic,otheragenciesandDARDstaffregardingpotentialbreachesofDisqualificationOrders.

TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDVSuselessonslearnedfromcasereviewsasalearningopportunityforenforcementstaffandthattraining(includingtrainingofcallhandlers)beregularlyreviewed.

TheReviewfoundthatinspectionsarecarriedouttotherequiredstandardandthiswasevidencedbyauditreports.DARDVShasprocessesinplacetorefervulnerablepeopletotherelevantauthoritiesandtodirectthoseinneedtosupportservices.

Delivery Structures - non-farmed animals

Theintroductionofthe2011ActgaveCouncilsstatutorypowerstoappointinspectorstoenforceanimalwelfareinrespectofnon-farmedanimals.FundingfortheserviceisprovidedbyDARD.Priortothat,nosingleorganisationinNorthernIrelandwaswhollyresponsiblefortheenforcementofnon-farmedanimalwelfarelegislation.RecommendationshavebeenmadetoassistCouncilsinprovidingamoreconsistentservice,forexample,bystreamliningprocesses.

StakeholdersraisedavarietyofissueswhicharedealtwithinthisReport.Themainfocusofconcernwasaroundresourceprovisionfortheservice;handlingofwelfareincidentreferralsfromthepublicandwelfareorganisations;andtimelinessandqualityofresponsetoincidents.

TheReviewnotesthat,withregardtofundingpost2015/16,DARDhasinitiatedabusinesscaseforthenextComprehensiveSpendingReview(CSR).TheReview,therefore,keepstherecommendationfromtheInterimReport,whichwaswelcomedbystakeholders,thatDARDandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardcontinuetoreviewtherequiredleveloffundingforenforcementofthenon-farmedanimalwelfareserviceandthatCouncilscontinuetoseekefficiencieswerepossiblewhilemaintainingthecurrentlevelsofservice.

WhileacknowledgingthatCouncilsareautonomous,theReviewrecommendsthateachCounciladoptsaconsistentapproachinrelationtodelegatingthepowertoinstigatelegalproceedings.

Councilsemploytrainedcallhandlers,andthesearebasedinthefiveCouncillocations.AnimalwelfarecallsareprioritisedbaseduponguidancefromtheRoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(RSPCA).Theprioritisationallowsthemtodealwithcasesbasedontheurgencyofthesituation.

Delivery Structures - wild animals

The2011ActprovidesthePoliceServiceofNorthernIreland(PSNI)withsimilarpowerstothoseprovidedtoDARDandCouncil-appointedinspectors,aswellaspowersthatallowonlyconstablestoseizeanimalsinvolvedinfightingoffences.Sincethe2011ActwasintroducedthePSNIhastakenresponsibilityfordealingwithwelfareoffencesinvolvingwildanimalsandforthemoreseriousanimalwelfareoffences,suchasanimalfightingorwhereothercriminal

Page5


activitiesareinvolved.Aswellasdealingwithwildanimalsandseriouscriminalactivityinvolvinganimals,thePSNIalsohaslegalresponsibilitywhereananimalisfoundwanderingontheroadundertheAnimals(NI)Order1976andtheRoads(NI)Order1993.ThenumberofreportsreceivedbythePSNIinrelationtoanimalwelfarehasreducedsinceCouncilstookontheirenforcementroleinApril2012.

StakeholderscalledforadedicatedanimalwelfareunitwithinthePSNIandquestionedthelevelofknowledgewithintheorganisationregardingitsroleinrelationtoanimalwelfare.WhilerecognisingthattheoperatingmodeladoptedbythePSNIisanissuefortheChiefConstable,whoisoperationallyindependent,theReviewconsideredtheapproachtothedeliveryofanimalwelfare.ThePSNIhasinexcessof6,800officersavailabletorespondtoincidents.Thesearefullytrainedofficerswhoareskilledtoinvestigateanddealwithavarietyofoffences.TheyhavespecialistassistancefromaWildlifeLiaisonOfficer(WLO),ifnecessary.Thisoperatingmodelmeansthatlocalofficerscanbeavailablequicklyinanylocationtodealwithanincident.TheReviewconsidersthisapproachtoberationalandnotesthatitappearstobeworkingwell.

PSNIofficersandstaffhaveaccesstoanextensiveinternalwebsitewhichcontainsinformationandlegislationonanimalwelfare,andiscontinuouslyupdated.ThePSNIWLOalsoprovidestrainingtoallnewPSNIrecruits.ThenewrecruittrainingwillbegininMay2016followingarecommendationintheReview.ThewildlifeandanimalwelfareelementwillincludeagreedinputfromtheCouncils’AnimalWelfareOfficers(AWOs).Thistrainingcollaborationhasalreadybeenundertakenforthetrainingofcallhandlermanagers,asafirststep.

ConsiderationwasgiventohowthePSNImonitorsDisqualificationOrders,andtheReviewrecommendsthatanenhancedsystemofmonitoringbeputinplacetoincludeunannouncedvisits,aswellasarisk-basedassessmentpolicy.

Working Together (facilitating enforcement)

TheReviewexaminedhowthethreeenforcementbodiesworktogethertoimplementthe2011Act;howtheyworkwiththeirlegalteams,thePublicProsecutionService(PPS),andtheNorthernIrelandCourtsandTribunalService(NICTS);andhowCouncilsworkwithanimalcharities.

TheReviewrecommendsthatthethreeenforcementbodiesmeetregularlytodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actandtosharebestpracticeandlessonslearnedfromspecificinvestigations,includingNICTSwhenrequired.ThisincludesworkingtogethertodeveloptemplatesforDisposal,DeprivationandDisqualificationOrdersforusebyprosecutors.Thiswillalsoprovideopportunitiestodiscussandaddressareasofconcernthatarecross-cutting.

TheReviewexaminedhowCouncilsworkwithanimalwelfareorganisationsandrecommendsthatCouncilsmeetannuallywithkeyanimalwelfarerepresentativegroupstodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actwithregardtonon-farmedanimals.Councilsshouldcontinuetoworkwithorganisationsthatareinapositiontotakeownershipofanimalswhichmaybere-homedasaresultofDisposalOrdersgrantedbytheCourts,pendingconsiderationofalicensingsystemforsuchorganisations.

Page6


FollowingrepresentationfromstakeholderstheReviewconsideredaccesstoconvictiondataforenforcementbodiesandanimalre-homingorganisations.Accesstocriminalrecorddatamayonlybeprovidedonceastrictsetofcriteriahasbeenmetadheringtocontrolprocedures.Thecriteriaandproceduresinclude:ensuringthattheITsystemsusedforhandlingthedataarecapableofhandlinginformationtoarestrictedlevel;andthatstaffworkingwiththedatahavetheappropriatelevelofsecurityclearanceandtrainingtocovertheirdataprotectionresponsibilities.DARDwassuccessfulinanapplicationforaccesstotheCriminalRecordsViewer(CRV)andisconsideringoptionstoproviderelevantCouncilstaffwithsimilaraccesstoconvictiondata.

TheReviewspoketoalltheenforcementbodiesandfoundnoevidencetosuggestthatpeoplebannedfromkeepinganimalshadapproachedre-homingorganisationsforanimals.WhiletheReviewrecognisesthattheremaybepotentialbenefitsinprovidingthosenon-statutorybodiesinvolvedinthere-homingofanimalswithinformationonindividualswhoaredisqualifiedfromkeepinganimals,therewasnoprovencaseforsuchinformationtobeprovided.

TheReviewthereforeconcludedthatabetteroptionistocontinuetofocusresourcesonfront-lineenforcementduties.InreachingthisconclusiontheReviewconsideredresponsestoanonlinesurveyitcommissionedaimedatgainingabetterunderstandingofhowre-homingorganisationsconducttheirroles.WhiletheReviewidentifiedcommongoodpracticeamongstre-homingorganisations,thereweresomeareaswherepracticesdiffered.TheReviewthereforefeltthatre-homingarrangementsmightbestrengthenedifDARD,inconjunctionwithDOJ,whereappropriate,workwithre-homingorganisationstosharebestpracticeacrossthesector.TheReviewrecommendsthatDARD,withDOJsupport,arrangeaneventbringinganimalre-homingorganisationstogethertosharebestpracticeanddiscussstepsthatcanbetakentoensurethesuitabilityofindividualsapplyingtore-homeananimal.

TheReviewalsoconsideredmorebroadlytheissueoftheenforcementofDisqualificationOrdersandconsideredarangeofoptionswhichsoughttoaddressconcernsregardingdisqualifiedindividualswhomightattempttore-homeananimal.ItmakesrecommendationstoformaliseandstrengthenthemonitoringarrangementscurrentlyinplacewhichshouldstrengthenenforcementofDisqualificationOrders.

Serving the Public

Stakeholdersidentifiedconcernsaroundavailabilityofcontactinformationfortherelevantenforcementbody,askedfora24/7provisionandhighlightedconcernsthattherewasnotsufficientpublicityinrelationtoconvictions.TheReviewispleasedtonotethatsincethepublicationoftheInterimReportDARDhasliaisedwithNIDirectandtakenstepstowardsthecreationofasingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.Thiswillbringtogetherinformationfromallthreeenforcementbodies,includingcontactdetailsforeachoftheenforcementbodiesandanexplanationoftheirroleaswellaslinkstodocumentsontheenforcementbodies’websites,suchastheproposedAnnualReport,CodesofPractice,FrequentlyAskedQuestions,andcopiesofpressreleases.

Page7


TheReviewalsoconsideredthefeasibilityofproviding24-hourcontactandresponsefacilitiesforeachofthethreeenforcementbodies.

TheReviewconcludedthatthecurrentsystemwherebyeachenforcementbodyoperatesitsowndirectcontactarrangements,withbetterpublicity,isthebestoptionandthatthecasefor24/7provision,takingintoaccountanticipatedneedandtheresourcerequiredtoprovidetheservice,wasnotsupportedatthistime.

Stakeholderscommentedthatthepublicneedstobeeducatedonthe“fiveneeds”ofananimalandonanimalwelfaremattersgenerally.TheReviewrecommendsthatthisinformationbeincludedintheanimalwelfarewebpresenceandthatenforcementbodiesworkwiththemediatoincreasetheirunderstandingoftheissuesaroundanimalwelfare.Inaddition,theReviewconsideredthepotentialtoimproveeducationandawarenessactivities,forexampleinschools,toreduceanimalwelfareconcernsinthelongterm.TheReviewrecommendsthatofficialsinDARDandtheDepartmentofEducation(DE)shouldmeettodiscusshowtheymighthighlightanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschools.

Dog Breeding and Online Pet Sales

ShortlybeforetheinitialclosingdatefortheInterimReportconsultationprocess,aBBCScotlandDocumentaryProgramme,“TheDogFactory”,wasbroadcastacrosstheUnitedKingdom,initiallyon15April2015.ThissignificantlyraisedtheprofileofdogbreedingpracticesinNorthernIreland,andasaresultMinisterO’NeillextendedtheInterimReportconsultationperiodbyfourweeksto21May2015,sothattheseissuescouldbeconsideredfurther.

TheReviewfoundthat,on30September2015,therewere25licenseddogbreedingestablishmentsacrossNorthernIrelandaccountingforsome1,023breedingbitches.ThesearelocatedacrosssixoftheelevenCouncils.

SomestakeholdersexpressedconcernsthattheWelfareofAnimals(DogBreedingEstablishmentsandMiscellaneousAmendments)Regulations(NI)2013(the2013Regulations),whichregulatedogbreeding,donotrequireverificationthatsocialisation,enhancementandenrichmentprogrammesareimplemented.TheReviewfeltthatverificationoftheimplementationoftheseprogrammeswouldprovidereassurancethatbothadultdogsandpupsinbreedingestablishmentsreceiveappropriatementalandphysicalstimulationandexercise.Itrecommendsthatthisrequirementbeincludedinthelegislation,andinthemeantime,theguidelinesproducedbyDARDforCouncilEnforcementOfficersshouldincludestepstorequiretheverificationoftheimplementationofsocialisation,enhancementandenrichmentprogrammesduringinspection.

The2011ActprovidesCouncilEnforcementOfficerswithpowerstocarryoutinspectionsasandwhennecessary.Councilscarryoutaninspectionofdogbreedingpremisesonreceiptofalicenceapplication.Licencesarerenewedannually,andthecostofthisinspectiontotheCouncilisbuiltintothelicencefee.Inaddition,Councilsundertakeadditionalinspectionsshould,forexample,conditionsbeimposedonalicence,orifbreachesoflicensingconditionsarereported.TheReviewrecommendsthatCouncilsdrawupaprotocolforrisk-

Page8


based,unannouncedinspectionstoensureconsistencyacrossallCouncilareas.InadditionDARDshouldundertakeareviewoflicencefeestotakeintoaccountthecosttoCouncilsofadditionalinspections.

Anumberofstakeholderscalledforacaponthenumbersofdogsinabreedingestablishment.ThereviewconsideredworkcommissionedbytheEUDogandCatAlliancewhichreviewedthelegislationacrossEuropefordogsandcatsinvolvedincommercialpractices.NootherEUcountryplacesacaponthenumberofdogsinabreedingestablishment.TheReviewconcludedthatwelfareisnotconsideredtobescaledependentandthattheassessmentofwelfareshouldbeontheconditionoftheindividualdogsthemselvesandtheenvironmentinwhichtheyarekept.Placingacapwouldalsobeeasytocircumvent,withbusinessessplittocomplywithanysuchrequirements.

Whenbuyingapet,itisimportantthatthepublicareawareofthelegislationandtherelevantenforcementbodiesthattheyhaverecourseto.TheReviewrecommendsthatrelevantlinks/guidancebeincludedonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresencetoassistthepublicfurtherinthisarea.

Historically,DARDhasappliedthelegislationrelatingtopetshopsonlytopremisestowhichthepublichasaccess.However,aspartoftheforthcomingreviewofthepetshoplegislation,DARDisconsideringincludingtheonlinesellingofpetsfromotherpremises,includingonlineadvertisingfromaperson’shome.TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDincludestheissueofsellingpetsfromallpremisesaspartofitsconsultationwhenreviewingandrevisingthelegislationrelatingtopetshops,ridingandanimalboardingestablishments.

TheReviewispleasedtonotethat,sincethepublicationoftheInterimReport,DARDhasbeenworkingwithboththePetAdvertisingAdvisoryGroup(PAAG),andtheIrishPetAdvertisingAdvisoryGroup(IPAAG)whohaveintroducedminimumstandardsforonlinesalescompaniestoadheretowhenacceptingclassifiedadvertisementsforpetsales.

Equines

Theequineissuesraisedbystakeholderscanlargelybeconsideredundertwoheadings:traceability;andunwantedequines.Traceabilityincludestopicssuchastheenforcementofexistinglegislation,includingthetransferofownershipandtheneedfortheregistrationofpremiseswhereequinesarekept.Unwantedequinesincludedthetopicsofabandonedequines,indiscriminatebreedingandflygrazing.

Oneoftheissuesidentifiedbystakeholderswasthelackofup-to-dateinformationaboutthesizeoftheequinepopulationhereandtheextentofanyprobleminrelationtoabandonedequines.TheReviewcommissionedworktotrytoestablishanevidencebase.

InrelationtotheequinepopulationtheReviewfoundthatthenumberofregisteredequineshereisapproximately34,250.ThisisclosetothefindingsofanNIAssemblyBriefingPaperinDecember2010thatestimatedtheretobeover35,000equinesintotalinNorthernIreland.Inrelationtoabandonedequines,despiteagreatdealofefforttheReviewcouldnotverifythescaleoftheproblemsreportedbycharities.ItthereforeassessedinformationonthenumberofabandonedequinesseizedbyCouncilsandthePSNI.

Page9


DuringthetwoandahalfyearperiodfromApril2012untilSeptember2014,Councilstookintotheirpossession131abandonedhorses,ofwhichsixwerereturnedtotheirowners.ThisequatestoCouncilshavingtodealwithjustoverfourabandonedequinespermonth(approximatelyoneperweek)overthestatedperiod.FiguresprovidedbythePSNIshowthat,duringa21-monthperiodfrom1April2013until31December2014,172equineswereseizedbythePSNI.Thisequatestojustovereighthorsespermonth(approximatelytwoperweek).Morerecently,fortheperiodJanuarytoSeptember2015thePSNIseized31equinesthatwerewanderingontheroadswithnoownersidentified.Thisequatestodealingwithjustoverthreeequinespermonthduringthisninemonthperiod.Thecareandcollectioncostsassociatedwiththeseseizuresaresignificant.

IntheNorthernIrelandcontext,thereisaperceptionthatflygrazedequinesmaybeabandoned.CasesareoftenreportedbutfollowingattendancebyanAWOthereisseldomawelfareconcern.TheReviewdidnotfindsufficientevidencetosuggestthattheissueofflygrazingisassignificantastheprobleminWalesandEngland.Onthebasisoftheinformationreceivedandtheevidencegathered,thescaleoftheissuedoesnotsuggesttheneedtointroduceprimarylegislationtodealwithabandonedorflygrazedequinesatthistime.

However,theReviewdoesacknowledgetheconsiderablepublicnuisancecausedbyabandonedanimals,aswellasthesignificantresourceandstafftimethatthePSNIandCouncilshavetoallocatetodealwiththem.

Toaddressthis,theReviewbelievesthatitwouldbepossibletoamendthe2011Acttoaddaclausetoenableanacceleratedprocessforthere-hominganddisposalofabandoned,unidentifiedequines.TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDconsiderbringingforwardthisamendment.InthemeantimetheReviewrecommendsthatwhenequinesaretakenintopossessiontheauthorityapplyingfortheDisposalOrdershouldclearlyinformthecourtthattheequinesarenotmicro-chipped.Thisshouldensurethatthecourtsareawarethatitisnotpossibletoestablishownershipoftheequinesandallowthemtoprocesstherequestmorequickly.Inallcases,equineswillstillremainincareforaminimumnumberofdayswhichwillbesufficientforanyresponsibleownertocomeforward.

StakeholdersviewedtheenforcementoftheHorsePassportRegulationsasarequirementtoeffectivelyaddressissuesrelatingtoabandonedhorses,suchastracingowners,equinemovements,andindiscriminatebreeding.WhiletheReviewrecognisesthattheHorsePassportRegulationsmayprovidefortheidentificationofhorses,itmustberecognisedthatthepurposeoftheseRegulationsistoprotectthefoodchain.IssuessuchasequinetraceabilityandpremisesregistrationareoutsidethescopeoftheHorsePassportRegulations.OnnumerousoccasionsduringthediscussionsonequineissuestheReviewfeltthatamulti-agencyapproachinrelationtocommunicationswouldbebeneficial.TheReviewisawarethatDARDhasanEquineCoordinationGroup,whichincludesrepresentativesfrom

Page10


policyanddeliverybrancheswithintheDepartmentaswellastheCollegeofAgriculture,FoodandRuralEnterprise(CAFRE)andtheEquineCouncilforNorthernIreland(ECNI).TheReviewrecommendsthatthisgroupdevelopacommunicationstrategytoensurethatrelevantmessagesaredisseminatedacrosstheequineindustryatalllevelsinajoined-upandconsistentway.ItisenvisagedthecommunicationsstrategywouldincorporatemanyofthethemesthathaveariseninthisReviewacrosstherangeofstatutoryandindustryledissues,forexample:

• indiscriminatebreeding;

• endoflifedecisions;and

• passportandmicrochiprequirements.

Other/Related Issues

TheReviewalsoconsideredarangeofissuesraisedbystakeholdersduringtheDiscussionSessionsandduringtheConsultationwhich,whileoutsidetheimplementationofthe2011Act,havebeenaddressedinSections10and11.

Way Forward

ThisreporthasbeensharedwithbothMinisterMichelleO’NeillandMinisterDavidFord.TheReportwillalsobesharedwiththestakeholderswhocontributedtotheDiscussionSessionsduringtheearlystagesoftheReviewandallpartiesthatwereconsultedfollowingthepublicationoftheInterimReport.ItwillbemadeavailableontheDARDandDOJwebsites.

MinisterO’Neillwillbewritingtotherelevantagenciestoaskfortheirconsiderationoftherecommendationsrelevanttothem.Theirresponses,includingthetimescaleforimplementationoftheacceptedrecommendations,willbeincludedinanActionplanwhichwillbepublishedontheDARDwebsiteinduecourse.TheActionplanwillbereviewedandupdatedeverysixmonths.

Page11




Section 1Introduction

Page12


Introduction1.1 Background

Therehasbeenconsiderablepublic,politicalandmediainterestintheenforcementoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act),particularlywithregardtonon-farmedanimals.Publicconcernhasalsobeenexpressedinrelationtoperceivedlenientsentencingforanimalwelfareoffences,particularlyaftersomehighprofilecases,followingtheintroductionofthe2011Act.

On31March2014,theNorthernIrelandAssemblydebatedandagreedaPrivateMembers’Motionasfollows–That this Assembly notes with concern the number of cases of extreme animal cruelty that have occurred recently, the low number of convictions and the failure to impose the maximum sentence available; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in conjunction with the Minister for Justice, to initiate a review of the implementation of animal cruelty legislation, particularly sentencing guidelines and practices, to ensure that the maximum effectiveness is being brought to bear to combat these crimes.

InresponsetotheMotion,MinisterMichelleO’NeillestablishedaReviewoftheImplementationofthe2011Act,whichischairedjointlybyofficialsintheDepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment(DARD)andtheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ).AnInterimReportoftheReviewwaspublishedinFebruary2015,andconsultationwasinitiatedwithstakeholdersandthegeneralpublic.ThisistheFinalReportofthatReviewwhichsetsoutrecommendationsbasedontheevidenceexaminedduringtheReview.AfulllistofrecommendationsareincludedatAnnexA.

1.2 The Legislation

Foralmost40years,themainprimarylegislationregardinganimalwelfarewastheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)1972(the1972Act).The1972Actallowedintervention,andprosecutionactionstobetaken,forwardonlyaftercrueltyorunnecessarysufferinghadoccurred.

The2011Actintroducedadutyofcareinrespectofall“protectedanimals”(i.e.animalsunderthecontrolofanypersonwhetherpermanentlyortemporarily)andprovidednewenforcementpowerstoallowactiontobetakentopreventanimalsfromunnecessarysuffering.

The2011Act:

• providesthesamelevelofprotectionforbothfarmedandnon-farmedanimals;

• setsout“thefiveneeds”ofananimal;1)theneedforasuitableenvironment;2)theneedforasuitablediet;3)theneedtobeabletoexhibitnormalbehaviourpatterns;

Page13


4)anyneedtobehousedwith,orapartfrom,otheranimals;and5)theneedtobeprotectedfrompain,suffering,injuryanddisease;

• increasedthepenaltiesforseriousanimalwelfareoffences(toamaximumoftwoyears’imprisonmentandanunlimitedfine);

• extendedtheexistingpowersofenforcementbymakingnewpowersavailabletoCouncilstoappointinspectorstoimplementandenforceprovisionsinrespectofnon-farmedanimals,suchasdomesticpetsandhorses;

• strengthenedthepowersofthePoliceServiceofNorthernIreland(PSNI)inrespectofanimalfighting,includingdogfighting;

• providesforthemakingofregulationstosecurethewelfareofanimals,tolicenseorregisteractivitiesinvolvinganimalsandtoprohibitthekeepingofcertainanimals;and

• allowsDARDtoissue,orrevise,CodesofPractice(CoP)forthepurposeofprovidingpracticalguidancetofacilitatecompliancewithwelfareresponsibilities.

Inlinewiththe1972Act,welfareorganisationsandcharitiesdonothavepowersofenforcementunderthe2011Act.

AlistofsecondarylegislationandCoPmadeunderthe2011ActcanbefoundatAnnexB.

1.3 Review Methodology

Structure

TheReviewwasoverseenbyaReview Steering GroupcomprisingseniorofficialsfromDARDandDOJ.ThisGroupagreedtheTermsofReference(AnnexC),provideddirectionfortheReview,commissioningworkinanumberofareasaroundtheimplementationofthe2011Act,andhaspreparedthisFinalReport.

ADelivery Body Reference GroupmadeupofdeliverybodystakeholdersrepresentingCouncils,DARDpolicy,DARDVeterinaryService(DARDVS),DOJ,PublicProsecutionService(PPS),NorthernIrelandCourtsandTribunalService(NICTS)andPSNIwassetuptoprovideinputonoperationalissues,supportthestakeholderdiscussionsessionsandadviseonthepracticalimplicationsofWorkingGroupfindingsandrecommendations.

InitiallyfiveWorking Groupswereestablishedto:

• considertheimplementationofthe2011Actacrossthefourkeythemesandspecificworkstreams;

• identifythescaleandrangeofissues;and

• exploreoptionsforimprovementandproposerecommendations,asappropriate.

TheWorkingGroupshadrepresentativesfromCouncils,DARDpolicy,DARDVS,DOJ,NICTS,PPS,andPSNI.

Page14


EachWorkingGroupconsideredstakeholdercommentsandtheworkstreamsassignedtothem.Groupsmetonaregularbasistodiscussandevaluateissuesandagreerecommendations.

TheReviewSteeringGroupandDeliveryBodyReferenceGroupalsometatregularintervalstodiscussissuesarisingfromtheWorkingGroupsandprovidestrategicdirection.AnInterimReportwaspublishedinFebruary2015withemergingrecommendations.

Consultation

AtwelveweekconsultationperiodfollowedpublicationoftheInterimreport.ConsultationresponseshelpedinformthisFinalReport.

AwiderangeofstakeholderswereinvitedtocommentontheInterimReportanditsemergingrecommendations,includingstatutoryorganisations,welfareorganisations,rescue/re-homingorganisationsandindustryrepresentativebodies.AlistofrespondentstotheconsultationisavailableatAnnexD.Theconsultationopenedon26February2015andclosedon21May2015.Informationontheconsultationandassociatedpapers,aswellasasummaryoftheresponsestotheconsultationcanbefoundatthefollowingaddress–https://www.dardni.gov.uk/consultations/interim-report-review-implementation-welfare-animals-act-ni-11

TheReviewdevelopedtherecommendationspublishedintheInterimReport,takingintoconsiderationthecommentsfromrespondentstotheconsultation.ThosefindingsareincludedinthisFinalReport.

Inresponsetoissuesraisedbyrespondentstotheconsultation,twoadditionalWorkingGroupswereestablishedtoreviewcommentsondogbreeding,includingonlinesellingofpetsandequinerelatedissues.TheWorkingGroupsexploredoptionsforaddressingtheissuesraisedintheresponsestotheconsultationandproposedrecommendations,asappropriate.TheseWorkingGroupsweremoresubjectspecificandhadsmallermembershipbutalsoconsultedwithoutsideorganisationsandanimalwelfaregroups.

1.4 Review Themes

FollowingconsultationontheInterimReport,theReviewgavefurtherconsiderationtotheimplementationofthe2011Actunderthefollowingsixkeythemes:

Sentencing-Thesentencingofthoseconvictedofthemostseverecasesofanimalwelfareoffenceshasoftenattractedattentionfromthepublic,electedrepresentativesandthemedia.Penaltiesunderthe2011Actincludeimprisonment,afine,havinganimalstakenaway,and/ordisqualificationfromkeepinganimalsinthefuture.TheReviewconsideredthepenaltiesbycomparisonwiththoseavailableinotherjurisdictionsandthesentencingframeworkforanimalwelfareoffencesandconsideredwhatimprovementcouldbemadeinthisarea.

Page15


Delivery Structures-WelfareenforcementforfarmedanimalsiscarriedoutbyDARDVS,whilethePSNIhasresponsibilityforwildanimals,animalfightingandwelfareissueswhereothercriminalactivitiesareinvolved.

Welfareenforcementinrespectofnon-farmedanimals,althoughfundedbyDARD,iscarriedoutbyCouncilsusingaclusterapproachwithfiveCouncilregions,includingaleadco-ordinatingCouncilregion.

TheReviewexamined,foreachenforcementbodyhowitdeliversitsanimalwelfareserviceincluding:

•thecurrentmanagement,administrative(includingcasepreparation)andenforcementarrangements;

•existingimplementationpolicies; •theuseofresources; •arrangementsfortraininganddevelopment;and •theneedforperformancestandards.

Working Together (facilitating enforcement) -Successfulprogressofacasefrominitialreferral,throughinvestigationto(potential)prosecution,requireseffectiveworkingbothwithinandbetweenseveralagencies.

TheReviewexaminedhowthefollowingworktogether:

•Councils,DARDandthePSNI; •Enforcementbodies,theirlegalteams/thePPSandtheNICTS;and •Councils,animalcharities,rescuegroupsetc.

TheReviewalso:

•consideredaccesstoconvictiondataforenforcementbodies,otherthanthePSNI;andexaminedcross-borderrelationshipsbetweenenforcementbodies.

Serving the Public–Membersofthepublicmusthaveconfidenceinhowenforcementbodiesdischargeanimalwelfareresponsibilities.Itisessentialthereforethatmembersofthepublicareawareofwhotocontactshouldtheyneedtoreportananimalwelfareconcern,understandtheirlegalresponsibilitieswhenresponsibleforananimal,andareinformedoftheenforcementworkbeingundertakenunderthe2011Act.

TheReviewexamined:

•theavailablepublicfacingmaterial,itsprominence,andmethodsusedinpublicisinganimalwelfareenforcement;

•complaintsprocedures;and •thearrangementsinplacetoinformthepublicoftheeffectivenessofanimal

welfareenforcementintermsofcasesinvestigated,prosecutedetc.

Page16


Dog Breeding and online pet sales–ThelegislationwhichregulatescommercialdogbreedinginNorthernIrelandistheWelfareofAnimals(DogBreedingEstablishmentsandMiscellaneousAmendments)Regulations(NorthernIreland)2013(the2013Regulations)whicharemadeunderthe2011Act.EnforcementofthislegislationiscarriedoutbyCouncilEnforcementOfficers.

Inresponsetoconcernsraisedaroundbothdogbreedingandtheonlinesaleofpets,followingthepublicationoftheInterimReport,theReviewexaminedtheissuesraisedbystakeholderswhichcanlargelybesummarisedunderthefollowingthemes:

• Legislationandenforcement;

• Licensingandinspections;

• Breedingestablishmentrequirements;

• Breederidentification;

• Breeding;

• Trainingforbreeders;

• Portalcontrols;

• Educationofthepublic;and

• Onlinesellingofpets.

Equines–Underthe2011ActresponsibilityforenforcementinrelationtononfarmedanimalsincludingequinessitswithCouncils.Thepowersandoffencesinrelationtoequinesarethesameasforothernon-farmedanimals(seesection4.1).Inadditiontotheoffencesinrelationtounnecessarysuffering,the2011Actmakesitanoffenceif,withoutreasonableexcuse,apersonabandonsananimalforwhichtheyareresponsiblewithoutmakingadequateprovisionforitswelfare.

Thereviewconsideredequineissuesraisedbystakeholders.Thesecanlargelybedividedintotwomainheadings:traceability;andunwantedequines.

Traceabilityincludedtopicssuchas:

• theenforcementofexistinglegislation,includingthetransferofownership;and

• theneedfortheregistrationofpremiseswhereequinesarekept.

Unwantedequinesincludedthetopicsof:

• abandonedequines,

• indiscriminatebreeding;and

• flygrazing.

Page17


1.5 Way forward

ThisFinalReporthasbeensharedwithbothMinisterMichelleO’NeillandMinisterDavidFordwhohavewelcomedtheworkundertakenbytheReview.TheReportwillalsobesharedwiththestakeholderswhocontributedtotheDiscussionSessionsduringtheearlystagesoftheReviewandallpartiesthatwereconsultedfollowingthepublicationoftheInterimReport.ItwillbemadeavailableontheDARDandDOJwebsites.

MinisterO’Neillwillbewritingtotherelevantagenciestoaskfortheirconsiderationoftherecommendationsrelevanttothem.Theirresponses,includingtimescaleforimplementationofacceptedrecommendations,willbeincludedinanActionplanwhichwillbepublishedontheDARDwebsiteinduecourse.TheActionplanwillbereviewedandupdatedeverysixmonths.

Page18




Section 2Sentencing

Page19


Sentencing2.1 Background SentencingincriminalcasesisamatterfortheindependentJudiciarytakingintoaccount

anumberof,sometimescomplex,factorsbeforedeterminingtheappropriatesentenceinanindividualcase.Thesefactorsinclude:theseriousnessoftheoffence;themaximum,andsometimesminimum,penaltysetbylaw;therangeofavailabledisposals;thecircumstancesoftheoffenderincludingpreviousconvictions;theprotectionofthepublic;theimpactonthevictim;andanyaggravatingormitigatingfactorsinthecase.Judgesarealsoguidedbypreviousdecisionsinthecourts,especiallybyguidelinejudgmentsfromtheCourtofAppealor,whereappropriate,bymagistrates’courts’SentencingGuidelines.

JudgmentsordecisionsoftheNorthernIrelandCourtofAppealarebindingontheHighCourtandtheCrownCourtofNorthernIreland,andtheirdecisionsinturnarebindingonthecountycourtsandthemagistrates’courts.Thejudgmentordecisionsetsoutthefactorsandsentenceappropriatetotheindividualappealandisadefinitivestatementonanaspectofsentencinglaw.Itisgivenasthe‘ratiodecidendi’ofacase,literallythe‘reasonfordeciding’andistheonlypartofitthatisbindingonthelowercourts.

However,thebindingauthorityofthesedecisionsonsubsequentcasesislimited–eachsentencingdecisionisbasedonthefactsoftheindividualcaseandpreviousdecisionsarebindingonthelowercourtsonlyifthefactsofthecasecannotbedistinguishedinsomewayfromthepreviouscase.Thesystemofbindingauthorityapplieslessrigorouslyinsentencingcases,becauseitisrecognisedthattheyaresoheavilyfact-dependant.

Guidelinejudgments,whichareissuedbytheCourtofAppealinthecontextofaparticularcase,aretheexceptiontothisruleinthattheygiveboththedecisioninthecaseandprovideguidelines.Theywillstatethereasonfordecidingtheappropriatesentenceforthatoffender,butwillalsoprovideguidelinestosentencerswhichareinfluentialinindicatingtheappropriateapproachtotakeinasimilarcase.Guidelinejudgmentsmaybeusedtoprovideguidanceinrelationtonewoffencesinrespectofwhichthereislittleornopreviousguidanceavailable.Theymayalsobegiventoensurethatexistingsentencingguidanceforestablishedoffencesisappropriateasnewtrendsinsocietyemerge.

Sentencingguidelinesprovidejudgeswithastartingpointforsentencesandidentifyasentencingrangeeithersideofthestartingpointthatmaybeappropriate,takingaccountoftheseriousnessoftheoffenceandanyrelevantaggravatingormitigatingfactors.Theyareusedtoguideorstructurethesentencingprocessandtomakethesentencingprocessmoretransparentandsentencesmoreconsistent.

Guidelinesforanimalwelfareoffencesheardinthemagistrates’courtshavebeendevelopedbytheLordChiefJustice’sSentencingGroupandareavailableontheJudicialStudiesBoardwebsite–http://www.jsbni.com/Publications/sentencing-guides-magistrates-court/Pages/default.aspx

Page20


GuidelinejudgmentsforanimalwelfarecasesheardintheCrownCourtwillbecomeavailableassuitablecasescomebeforetheCourtofAppeal.

2.2 Stakeholders were concerned about the penalties handed down for animal welfare offences

TheReviewconsideredthepenaltiesavailableinotherjurisdictionsforanimalwelfareoffences.InEnglandandWales,animalwelfareoffencesareprosecutedundertheAnimalWelfareAct2006.

Theoffencesaresummaryonlyandonconvictionforasingleoffence,themaximumpenaltyissixmonthsimprisonmentand/ora£20,000fine.SentencingguidelineshavebeendevelopedandareavailableontheSentencingCouncilwebsite–www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/?type=publications&cat=definitive-guideline

InScotland,animalwelfareoffencesareprosecutedundertheAnimalHealthandWelfare(Scotland)Act2006.Theoffencesaresummaryonlyand,onconviction,themaximumpenaltyissixmonthsimprisonmentand/ora£1,000fine,exceptforSection19(unnecessarysuffering)andSection23(animalfights)wherethemaximumpenaltyistwelvemonthsimprisonmentand/ora£20,000fine.Therearenosentencingguidelines.

IntheRepublicofIreland,animalwelfareoffencesareprosecutedundertheAnimalHealthandWelfareAct2013.Onsummaryconviction,themaximumpenaltyissixmonthsimprisonmentand/ora€5,000fine.Onconvictiononindictment,themaximumpenaltyisfiveyearsimprisonmentand/ora€250,000fine.

PreviouslyinNorthernIreland,undertheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)1972themaximumpenaltywasthreemonthsimprisonmentand/ora£5,000fineonsummaryconviction.TheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act)increasedthemaximumpenaltiesforanimalwelfareoffencesto:

• Summary offences–sixmonthsimprisonmentorafineof£5,000(orboth)forthoseconvictedsummarilyinthemagistrates’courtsand;

• Indictable offences–twoyearsimprisonmentoranunlimitedfine(orboth)formoreseriousoffencestriedintheCrownCourt.

ThefactthatNorthernIrelandiscurrentlytheonlypartoftheUKwhichprovidesforcertainanimalwelfareoffencestobetriedintheCrownCourtreinforcestheviewthatthecurrentpenaltiesunderthe2011Actarestrong.

TheReviewconsideredthestatutorymaximumpenaltiesunderthe2011Actandbroadlycomparedtheseagainstthepenaltiesavailableforother“eitherway”offences,thatis,offencesthatcanbeheardineitherthemagistrates’courtsortheCrownCourt.Itconcludedthattherewasscopewithintheexistingsentencingframeworktoincreasethemaximumpenaltiesunderthe2011Act.

Page21


AtInterimReportstagetheReviewrecommendedthatDARDshouldconsiderincreasingthestatutorymaximumpenaltiesforthemoreserioussummaryoffences,andforindictableoffences,underthe2011Actasfollows:

• Summary offences–increasethemaximumprisonsentenceavailableforthosefoundguiltyofthemoreserioussummaryoffencesfromsixmonthstotwelvemonths,andthemaximumfinefrom£5,000to£20,000;and

• Indictable offences–increasethemaximumprisonsentenceforthosefoundguiltyonindictmentfromtwoyearstofiveyears(themaximumunlimitedfinewouldremainunchanged).

IncreasingthemaximumpenaltiesinthiswaywouldensureNorthernIrelandhasamaximumsentenceavailableonsummaryconvictionthatcomparesfavourablywithanywhereontheseislands.ItwouldbringthemaximumfineimposableonsummaryconvictionintolinewiththatavailableinEngland,WalesandScotland(whereanoffenceofunnecessarysufferingattractsamaximumfineof£20,000).Inaddition,itwouldbringintolinethemaximumsentenceofimprisonmentonindictmentwiththemaximumintheRepublicofIreland.Consequently,itwouldensurethatforanimalwelfarecrimeNorthernIrelandhasamongstthetoughestsentencesanywhereontheseislands.Thiswouldhelptoaddresstheconcernsofsomestakeholdersbyunderscoringtheseriousnesswithwhichsuchoffencesareviewed.

Therewassubstantialsupportforthisrecommendationduringtheconsultation,inparticularfromanimalwelfarecharities,andtheReviewagreedthattherecommendationshouldbedevelopedforinclusionintheFinalReport.

TheReviewhasdevelopeditsrecommendations,thedetailofwhichisasfollows:-

• Summary Offences –Increasethemaximumpenaltyonsummaryconvictionfortheoffencesofcausing unnecessary suffering(section4)andanimal fighting (sections8(1)&8(2))totwelvemonthsimprisonment,afinenotexceeding£20,000,orboth;

• Indictable Offences–Increasethemaximumsentenceforconvictiononindictment,fromtwoyearsimprisonmenttofiveyears.

• Thefollowingsummaryonlyoffencesareamendedtomakethemhybrid,whichwillallowthemostseriouscasestobeheardintheCrownCourt:

• Supplying,publishing,showingandpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight;

• Breachingadisqualificationorder;and• Sellingorpartingwithananimalpendingtheoutcomeofanappealtoa

deprivationorder.

• Therangeofancillarypost-convictionpowersavailabletothecourtsfollowingconvictionforanimalfightingoffencesareextendedtobeavailablefollowingaconvictionforsupplying,publishing,showingandpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight.Thiswould,forexample,givecourts

Page22


thepowertoconfiscateananimalfromanownerconvictedofsupplyingimagesorvideoofananimalfight,andtodisqualifysuchpersonsfromowningorkeepinganimals.

TheReviewrecommendsnochangetothepenaltiesavailabletothecourtsfortheremainderoftheoffencesinthe2011Act.

ThesechangeswillachievetheobjectiveofensuringthatthepenaltiesavailabletothecourtsforthemostseriousanimalwelfareoffencesareamongstthetoughestsentencesavailableintheBritishIsles.

TheReviewispleasedtonotethattheDARDMinisterwaskeentoimplementthesechangesassoonaspossibletoensurestrongdeterrentsareinplaceforanyactsofanimalcrueltyandaskedofficialstoprogressthisrecommendationassoonaspossible.HoweverDARDdoesnothaveasuitablepieceofprimarylegislationtobringforwardthechangesinthecurrentAssemblymandateandlookedforotheropportunitiestoprogressthisissue.WiththeagreementoftheJusticeMinisterthenecessaryamendmentstosentencingprovisioninthe2011ActarebeingtakenforwardintheJustice(No.2)BillwhichiscurrentlybeforetheAssembly.

2.3 Stakeholders expressed a view that minimum sentences and aggravated offences for animal welfare cases should be introduced

Whileminimumsentencesdoexist,forexampleincertainfirearmsoffences;andlifeimprisonmentistheminimumsentenceformurder,itisacknowledgedbyGovernmentthatdiscretioninsentencingmattersshouldbereservedfortheindependentjudiciarywhoseroleistomaintaintheRuleofLaw.Hence,theUKlegalsystemisorganisedtoallowJudges,whensentencing,totakeintoaccountanyaggravatingandmitigatingfactors,thecircumstancesoftheoffenceandtheoffender,includingpreviousconvictionsandguiltypleasorotherrelevantfactors.Minimumsentencesmakenoallowancefortheexceptionalcase,andthereisalwaysthepotentialforsuchacase.

Thereareexamplesofspecificaggravatedoffenceswhichhavebeencreatedinlegislation,suchasaggravatedburglary.However,whereapersonisprosecutedforanaggravatedoffence,itisnecessaryfortheprosecutiontoproveboththatthedefendantcommittedtheactthatallegedlyoccurred,andalsotheaggravatedelementoftheoffence.Iftheaggravationpartofthatoffenceisnotproven,thenthedefendantwillnotbeconvictedoftheoffence.Themorecommonapproachisforoffencestobedefinedinlawandthenupontheprosecutionprovingthattheactwascommitted,itisforthecourttodetermineanyaggravatingfactors.Ifthecourtdeterminesthatthereareaggravatingfactorsthiswillbetakenintoaccountwhensentencingandthedefendantmayreceiveahighersentence.TheReviewnotedthattheexistingsentencingguidelinesforthemagistrates’courtswhichhavebeendevelopedforcertainoffencesunderthe2011Actcurrentlylistexamplesofpossibleaggravatingfactors.

TheReviewfoundthattodefineaggravationinanimalwelfareoffenceswouldbeproblematic.Theaggravatingelementmustbeseparate,thatis,theextremenatureofthesufferingcausedorthespecificintentionoftheassailanttocausesufferingcannot

Page23


initselfbesufficienttoproveanaggravatedoffence.Todefine,andsubsequentlyprove,aggravationrequireselementsofanothercrimebeingperpetratedagainsttheanimalatthetimetheanimalwelfareoffenceisbeingcommitted.

TheReviewisnotrecommendingtheintroductionofminimumsentencingoraggravatedoffencesonthebasisthatminimumsentenceswouldaffecttheJudiciary’sabilitytotakeallfactorsintoaccountwhensentencing,andaggravatedoffenceswouldpotentiallymakeitmoredifficulttoobtainaconvictionduetothenecessitytoprovetheaggravatedelement.

2.4 Stakeholders felt that on the spot fines should be available to enforcement bodies

TheReviewfoundthatwhenwelfaresituationsarise,themostimportantfactorisalleviatingthesufferingofananimal.Itisnotalwaysappropriatetopenalisetheowneroftheanimal,especiallyforminorwelfareissues,whichmaybeeasilyresolvedbyprovidingdetailoflegislativerequirementsandguidance.ImprovementNoticescanbeissuedifapersonisfailingtoensurethewelfareofanimalsforwhichtheyareresponsible.ImprovementNoticesaresuccessfullyusedforfarmedandnon-farmedanimalswithoutanonthespotfine.IfanImprovementNoticeisissuedforfarmedanimals,thesearereferredforconsiderationofapenaltyagainstdirectagriculturalschemes,whicharesubjecttoadherencetoCross-Compliancerequirements.

TheReviewisnotrecommendingtheintroductionofonthespotfinesatthistimeastheevidenceavailableshowsthatImprovementNoticesareeffectiveandallowforfollowupactiontobetakenasappropriate.TheReviewalsonotesthatfailingtocomplywithanImprovementNoticeisanoffence,thepenaltyforwhichiscurrentlyimprisonmentforuptosixmonthsandafineofupto£5,000.

2.5 Stakeholders expressed concern about what they perceive to be unduly lenient sentences and lack of consistency in sentencing

Asthecurrentlegislationhasbeenoperatingforarelativelyshorttime,consistencyinsentencingforthesespecificoffencesisdifficulttoassess.InhisProgrammeofActiononsentencing,theLordChiefJustice(LCJ)hasbeentakingstepstoaddressissuesofconsistency,transparencyandconfidenceinsentencingmoregenerally.ToenhancetheguidanceavailabletotheJudiciaryindeterminingtheappropriatesentence,theLCJhasestablishedaSentencingGrouptooverseethedevelopmentofsentencingguidelinesandguidelinejudgmentsandanimalcrueltyhasbeenaddedtotheLCJ’sProgrammeofActiononSentencing.Guidelineshavebeendevelopedforanimalcrueltycasesheardinthemagistrates’courts.

In2013,MinisterO’NeillwrotetotheLCJtohighlightthepublicconcernregardingtheperceivedleniencyofsentencesinrespectofanimalwelfareandalsototheJusticeMinistertoaskhimtoconsiderspecificallyanimalwelfareoffencesinanyfuturereviewofthecriteriaunderwhichtheDirectorofPublicProsecutions(DPP)mayapplytotheCourtofAppealforareviewofanUndulyLenientSentence.InSeptember2014,theJusticeMinisterannouncedhisintentiontocarryoutawiderangingreviewofthecurrentUnduly

Page24


LenientSentencing(ULS)scheme,whichappliestothemostseriouscasesheardintheCrownCourt.Aspartofthatwork,heagreedtoconsidertheinclusionofanimalwelfareoffencesunderthescheme.Consequently,theInterimReportdidnotcontainanyfurtherrecommendationsontheissueofundulylenientsentences.InterestedstakeholderswereadvisedtoconsidertheDOJconsultationandreport,furtherdetailsofwhichcanbefoundontheDOJwebsiteatwww.dojni.gov.uk.

FollowingpublicconsultationonthereviewoftheULSscheme,theJusticeMinisterhasagreedtoaddanimalwelfareoffencestothelistofoffenceswhichcanbereferredtotheCourtofAppealbytheDPPwherethesentencehandeddown,incasesheardintheCrownCourtisconsideredtobe“undulylenient”.Toassistthatwork,DARDandDOJcommissionedtheReviewtoadviseonthespecificanimalwelfareoffenceswhichshouldbeincludedintheULSschemeandmakerecommendationsaccordingly.

Indoingso,theReviewsoughttoidentifycaseswhichgeneratedahighlevelofpublicconcernandwiththepotentialtodamagepublicconfidenceintheCriminalJusticeSystem.TheReviewalsoexaminedthosecasestoestablishwhethercommonthemesappliedregardingthespecificoffencesinvolved.

TheReviewfoundthattheoffenceofcausing unnecessarysuffering (section4),whichisahybridoffence,featuredregularlyinthecasessampledandrecommendsthatitbeaddedtotheULSscheme.

TheReviewalsorecommendsthatanimal fighting offences (section8(1)&(2))shouldbeincludedintheULSscheme.Whiletheseoffencesappearedlessfrequentlyinthecasessampled,theReviewfoundthatcasesofthisnaturegiverisetoconsiderableconcernamongstthepublic,therebywarrantinginclusioninthescheme.

ThisrecommendationhasbeenacceptedbybothMinistersandDOJarepreparingthenecessarysubordinatelegislationtohavetheseoffencesincludedintheULSscheme.

TheReviewalsoconsideredtheexistingarrangementsforpromotingawarenessofsentencingguidelines.Itnotesthattheproposedchangestothemaximumpenaltieswhenimplementedwillhaveanimpactonthecurrentsentencingguidelines.TheReview,therefore,recommendsthatDOJwritetotheLordChiefJusticetosharethedetailofthenewproposedmaximumpenalties,whicharesubjecttoAssemblyapproval.Ifhelpful,theReviewsuggeststhatrepresentativesfromDARDandCouncilscouldprovidetheJudicialStudiesBoardwithabriefingonthebackgroundtotheirrespectiveenforcementroles.

Page25


Recommendations

Recommendation 1:DARDconsidersincreasingpenaltiesforanimalwelfareoffencesasfollows:

• Summary Offences –Increasethemaximumpenaltyonsummaryconvictionfortheoffencesofcausing unnecessary suffering(section4)andanimal fighting (sections8(1)&8(2))totwelvemonthsimprisonment,afinenotexceeding£20,000,orboth.


• Thefollowingsummaryonlyoffencesareamendedtomakethemhybrid,whichwillallowthemostseriouscasestobeheardintheCrownCourt:-

• Knowinglysupplying,publishing,showingorpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight;

• Breachingadisqualificationorder;and,• Sellingorpartingwithananimalpendingtheoutcomeofanappealtoa

deprivationorder.

• Therangeofancillarypost-convictionpowersavailabletothecourtsfollowingconvictionforanimalfightingoffencesareextendedtobeavailablefollowingaconvictionforsupplying,publishing,showingorpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight.Thiswould,forexample,givecourtsthepowertoconfiscateananimalfromanownerconvictedofsupplyingimagesorvideoofananimalfight,andtodisqualifysuchpersonsfromowningorkeepinganimals.

Recommendation 2:DOJtoconsideraddingthefollowinghybridoffencestotheUndulyLenientSentencingScheme(whichwouldapplyincircumstanceswherethesecasesareheardbeforetheCrownCourt):-

• Unnecessarysuffering(section4),and

• Causing/attendingananimalfight(sections8(1)and8(2)).

Recommendation 3:DOJtowritetotheLordChiefJusticetosharethedetailoftheproposedincreasetothemaximumpenaltiesasthismayimpactonexistingsentencingguidelines.ConsiderationshouldalsobegiventogivingDARDandlocalCouncilsanopportunitytoprovidetheJudicialStudiesBoardwithbackgroundabouttheirenforcementroles.

Page26




Section 3Delivery Structures - Farmed Animals

Page27


Delivery Structures - Farmed Animals3.1 Background

TheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act)givesstatutorypowerstoinspectorsintheDepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment(DARD),withrespecttotheprotectionoffarmedanimalsi.e.anyanimalbredorkeptfortheproductionoffood,woolorskinorforotherfarmingpurposes.Itcreatesanoffenceifapersonresponsibleforananimalfailsto,whetheronapermanentortemporarybasis,takereasonablestepstoensurethewelfareofthatanimal.Italsoprovidesthat:

• aninspector(orconstable)maytakeintotheirpossessionananimalwhichissufferingorlikelytosuffer(asopposedtowaitinguntilthesufferinghasoccurred);

• apersoncanbedeprivedofpossessionorownershipofananimalonconvictionforcertainspecifiedoffences;and

• apersoncanbedisqualifiedfromparticipatinginanimal-relatedactivitiesfollowingconvictionforcertainoffences.

DARDenforcestheWelfareofFarmedAnimalsRegulations(NI)2012(the2012Regulations)whichweremadeunderSection11ofthe2011Act.The2012RegulationstransposevariouspiecesofEuropeanlegislationwhichestablishtheminimumstandardsrequiredtoensuretheneedsoffarmedanimalsaremet.DARDalsohasresponsibilityforthelicensingandinspectionofpetshops,animalboarding,ridingandzoologicalestablishments,undertheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)1972.ThisfunctionwilltransfertoCouncilswhennewsubordinatelegislationismadeunderthe2011Act.

TheReviewconsideredhowDARDdeliversitsfarmedanimalwelfareprogramme,examiningcurrentmanagement,administrativeandenforcementarrangementsandtheuseofresourceswithinDARDVeterinaryService(DARDVS).

TheDARDVSFarmedAnimalWelfareProgrammeismanagedunderthegovernanceoftheVeterinaryServiceBoard(VSB)andisdeliveredthroughthevariousDARDVSworkstreams(setoutbelow),eachunderthedirectionofaSeniorPrincipalVeterinaryOfficer(SPVO).

• Delivery –theworkonthegroundisdeliveredbyDARDAnimalHealthandWelfareInspectors(AHWIs)andVeterinaryOfficers(VOs)locatedacross10localDARDDirectoffices.A24/7“on-call”serviceisprovidedatweekends.

• Enforcement–DARD’sAHWIsandVOscantakearangeofenforcementactionstoaddressanimalwelfareconcerns,rangingfromprovidingdetailoflegislativerequirementsandguidance,toissuingalegallybindingImprovementNoticeorpotentialprosecution.DARDVeterinaryServiceEnforcementBranch(VSEB)assistswithchallengingcasesandthepreparationofprosecutionfiles.

Page28


• Cross-Compliance –DARDinspectsarandomandrisk-basedselectionoffarmbusinesseseachyeartoverifycompliancewiththeconditionsspecifiedinthe2012Regulations.FarmersmustalsocomplywithasetofStatutoryManagementRequirements(SMRs)underCross-ComplianceinordertoqualifyforpaymentsfromagriculturalsupportschemessuchasBasicPaymentScheme(thereplacementfortheSingleFarmPayment),AreasofNaturalConstraintSchemeandEnvironmentalFarmingScheme,andcertainpaymentsundertheNorthernIrelandRuralDevelopmentProgramme.TheSMRshelptoprotectpublic,animalandplanthealth,theenvironment,andanimalwelfare.AllbreachesofanimalwelfareSMRsarereferredforconsiderationofapenaltyagainstthedirectagriculturalschemescoveredbyCross-Compliance.

• Welfare programme management –deliveryissupportedbyaspecialistpolicyandlogisticsteamconsistingofVOsandadministratorsinDARDVSandDARDCustomerServiceBranch(CSB).

DARDVScarryoutbetween700and1,000farmedanimalwelfareinspectionsannually.Farmsaretargetedforinspection:

• whereprevioushistorygivesreasonablegroundstosuspectthatanimalwelfaremaybeatriskofcompromise;

• inresponsetocomplaintsfromthegeneralpublic,otheragenciesorDARDofficials;or

• aspartofEUCross-Compliancerequirements.

Allfarmedanimalwelfareinspectionsarecarriedouttothestandardspecifiedinthe2012Regulations,inexerciseoftheenforcementpowersavailableunderthe2011Act.

Anynon-compliancewithanimalwelfarelegislationdetectedduringaninspectionmayresultintheinitiationoftheenforcementprocess.Farmersarenotifiedinwriting,specifyingthenatureofthenon-compliance,theremedialactionrequired,andthetimeframetoachievecomplianceifappropriate.Thefarmisthensubjectedtofollow-upinspection(s)todeterminewhetherthenon-compliancehasbeensatisfactorilyresolved.

VOsbecomeinvolvedineverycasewhereanimalsarefoundtobesufferingunnecessarily.Theyprovideaprofessionalopinionandensurethatanimalsindistressaremanagedinanappropriateandhumaneway.PoliciesandproceduresareinplacetotakeanimalsintopossessionunderSection17ofthe2011Actandtocarefortheseanimalspendingtheoutcomeofsubsequentlegalproceedings.TheDARDVShumaneslaughterteamassistswiththedestructionofanimalswhennecessary.

In2012,DARDVScarriedout703welfareinspectionsonfarmsandfound80%tobecompliantwithanimalwelfarelegislation.In2013,therewere722inspectionswith79%compliant.In2014,711welfareinspectionswereundertakenandcomplianceimprovedto86%.TheReviewlookedatthedetailunderpinningthesefiguresandfoundthatnon-compliancewasmoreprevalentininspectionscarriedoutasaresultofriskassessmentorbecauseofcomplaints.Thissuggeststhattargetinginspectionsonthebasisofriskassessmentisanappropriatemeansofidentifyingnon-compliance.

Page29


DARDVSmanagersprioritisecasesforprosecutionbasedontheprinciplesoutlinedintheCaseProsecutionPolicyofDARD’sEnforcementPolicy.Ateamofveterinaryandtechnicalstaff,involvedinboththedeliveryandenforcementworkstreams,aretrainedininvestigationandfilepreparation.FilesarereviewedbyVSEBmanagerswithinDARDVSbeforesubmissiontothePublicProsecutionService(PPS).Inanyprospectiveprosecutiontwotestsareapplied–theevidentialtestandthepublicinteresttest.ThedecisiontoprosecuteandtotakeacasetoCourtismadebythePPS.ThePPSiswhollyindependentofDARDVSanditsdecisionisbasedonanimpartialandprofessionalassessmentoftheavailableevidenceandthepublicinterest.

Thefollowingtableshowsthenumberofongoinginvestigations(casesbeforethecourts)andconvictionsfrom1January2012until30September2015.

Table 1: Number of convictions and cases before the courts for offences against farmed animals from 1 January 2012 to 30 September 2015

Year Convictions under the 2011 Act

Cases before the court*

2012 0 1

2013 2 2

2014 6 6

2015** 12 3

Total 20 12

*Thesefiguresreflectthenumberofcasesfromeachyearthatwereongoingthroughthecourtson30September2015.

**Thesefiguresarefor1January2015to30September2015

Thefollowingchartillustratestheincreaseinthenumberofconvictionsyearonyearasthe2011Acthasbeddedin.

Page30


Figure 1: Number of convictions for offences against farmed animals from 1 January 2012 to 30 September 2015

TheReviewconsideredpreviousauditscarriedoutbytheEUCommission’sFoodandVeterinaryOfficeandtheDARDInternalAuditTeam,whichbothexaminedtheapproachDARDVStakestofarmanimalwelfareinspections.Althoughtheseauditspredatethe2011Act,theydidexaminedeliveryandimplementationofprevioussubordinatelegislationandthesamestandardsapplyinthe2012Regulations.TheseauditsdidnotidentifyanymajorconcernsandanyfindingsarefollowedupinlinewithDARDprocesses.DARDInternalAuditrecentlyexaminedDARDVS’sAnimalWelfare:SeizuresandWelfareinTransportprocesses.Bothprocessesreturnedasatisfactoryresult,andtheaudit’srecommendationshavebeencompletedasagreed.

TheReviewalsofoundfromdiscussionswithstakeholdersandtheFarmingUnionsthatfarmersaregenerallyawareoftheirresponsibilitiesinrelationtoanimalwelfarelegislationandtheconsequenceofnon-compliance,throughvariousDARDpublicationsandcorrespondence.TherepresentativesoftheFarmingUnionsreportedfew,ifany,callsorcomplaintsinrelationtoDARD’shandlingofanimalwelfareissuesorimplementationofthe2011Act.DARDhasnotreceivedanycomplaintsinrelationtoitsanimalwelfareservicethroughitsformalcomplaintsprocedure.FurtherinformationontheformalcomplaintsprocedurecanbefoundatSection7.8.

Page31


DARD Veterinary Service (DARD VS) Case Study

Followingreportsfromthepublicandfindingsduringinspections,DARDVSestablishedthataconvictedoffenderwascontinuingtobreachanimalwelfarelegislationandcauseunnecessarysufferingtolivestock.ThedayafterthelocalDARDVSofficereferredthiscasetotheirmanagementteam,ameetingwasconvenedandthedecisionwasmadetotakepossessionoftheanimalsinordertoreducetheriskofunnecessarysuffering.Warrantswerearrangedduringthenextfewdayswhileoperationalplanningtookplace.Fivedaysaftertheinitialreferral,everythingwasinplacefortheseizuretohappen.

Uponarrivalatthepremises,theownerbecameirateattheseizureoftheanimalsandattackedDARDVSstaff,forwhichhewassubsequentlyarrestedbythePSNI.DARDVSwasawareofavulnerableadultonsiteandsohadnotifiedahealthtrustcontactpriortotheseizure.Thehealthtrustwasthenabletomakeappropriatearrangements.

Beforemovingtheanimals,VeterinaryOfficers(VOs)assessedthemtoensuretheywerefitfortransportandthentechnicalstaffbeganloadingthemontoacontractor’slorry.DARD’sHumaneSlaughterteamwaspresentfortheseizure,andarrangedtheeuthanasiaoftheindividualanimalsthatwereunfitfortransport.

TheanimalsfitfortransportweretransportedtoanotherpremisesandVOsexaminedtheanimalsuponarrivaltoensurethatnodifficultieshadarisenduringtransport.TheveterinarystaffcarriedoutTuberculosisandBrucellosistestsanddocumentedtheconditionofeveryanimal.TheanimalsremainedunderDARDcareasthecaseprogressedthroughthecourts.

ThiscaseresultedinalengthycourtactiontosecureaDisposalOrder.DARDVSpreparedthefilesfortheprosecution,whilecontinuingtoprovideveterinarycaretotheanimalsstayingatthepremises.ThelengthofthecourtproceedingsgaverisetotheaccrualofsignificantadditionalcarecostsforDARDVS.Whenthecourtorderallowingforthedisposaloftheseizedanimalswasgranted,DARDwasthenabletoeitherselloreuthanizetheanimals.

3.2 The Review looked at DARD VS performance standards

TheReviewfoundthatcurrentlythemainperformancetargetisthatallvalidreportingofanimalwelfareincidentsresultinaninspectionwithin24hours.Thesuccessrateforthistargetinthe2013/2014financialyearwas99%.Thereportingofkeyperformanceindicators(KPIs)forDARDVShassincebeenrevamped,followingtheenhancementoftheAnimalandPublicHealthInformationSystem(APHIS)inJune2014.MonthlyreportingofKPIshascommenced,butdataisnotyetavailableforafullfinancialyearsodetailedanalysiscannotbeundertakenatthispoint.

Page32


Asecondtargetissettoensurethatallrecordsofinspectionarefullyprocessedwithin30daysfromthedateoftheinspection.Linemanagersalsoperiodicallycarryoutqualitycompliancechecksontheperformanceofinspectorstoensurethattheyarecorrectlyenforcingthe2011Actwithregardtofarmedanimals.

AsdatahasonlybeenrecordedsinceAugust2014,DARDVSdonotyethavefiguresforafullfinancialyearsoareunabletoaccuratelyassessperformanceonthistargetatthispoint.TheReviewrecognisedthattherecentenhancementtoAPHISforfarmanimalwelfareworkwillenableDARDVStoproducemorein-depthandusefulmanagementinformationthanwaspreviouslyavailableandwillfacilitatethedevelopmentofnewperformanceindicators.Oncethesystemhasbeddedin,theReviewrecommendsthatperformanceisreviewedagainstcurrenttargetsand,ifnecessary,performancetargetsarereviewed.

3.3 Stakeholders expressed concerns about DARD’s response to anonymous calls and requested data in relation to the incidence and outcome of such calls.

Somestakeholdersrequestedthatanonymousreportsofwelfareconcernsshouldbeignored.TheReviewfoundthat,atthistime,itwasnotpossibletoquantifythenumberofanonymouscallsreceivedorthepercentageofthosewhichmaybevexatiousbecause,priortoJune2014,detailsofthecallswererecorded,processedandstoredmanuallyineachDARDDirectOffice.DARDVShasrecentlyenhanceditsITrecordingsystem,APHIS,toallowfortherecordingofcallsandtotakeaccountofdifferentwaysinwhichcomplaintscanbemade.Althoughthiswillallowforanalysisofthesecallsinthefuture,afurtherenhancementtoAPHISwouldberequiredtoallowDARDVStoidentifythosecallsthatofficialsregardasvexatious.

WhiletheReviewrecognisesthataproportionofallegationsmadearevexatious,itisalsoawarethatsomecallersmaywishtoremainanonymousforavarietyoflegitimatereasons.TheReviewfoundthatDARDVSlocalmanagers,donotignoreanonymousorpotentiallyvexatiouscallsbutcurrentlyexercisediscretionbeforearranginginspections.Thisisconsideredtobeanappropriateapproach.

TheInterimReportrecommendedthatDARDVSmonitorthelevelandoutcomeofanonymousandvexatiouscallsand,ifnecessary,reviewtheirprocedures.ItalsorecommendedthatDARDVSshouldconsiderreportingthenumberofanonymousandvexatiouscallsintheannualreportreferredtoatRecommendation40.Stakeholderswhorespondedtotheconsultationnotedthat,whiletheyaremindfulofthecivilrightsofcomplainantsandwouldnotwishtodeterwhistleblowersfromreportingwell-foundedwelfareconcerns,theywouldwishtoseeDARDtakingacloseinterestinthenumberandoutcomeofsuchcalls.Thisrecommendationisthereforeretained.

Page33


3.4Stakeholders expressed concerns about the enforcement of Disqualification Orders

TheReviewexaminedtheDARDVSpolicyonfollow-upchecksofdisqualifiedkeepers.

DARDVSmaintainsanAnimalWelfareDisqualifiedRecord(AWDR),availabletoappropriateDARDstaff,recordinganydisqualifiedherdorflockkeepersanddetailsoftheirdisqualifications.StaffintheDARDDirectOfficeshaveresponsibilityformonitoringindividualswithDisqualificationOrders.Targetedinspectionsassociatedwithdisqualifiedherdorflockkeepersarecarriedoutatleastannually,whichisconsistentwiththeapproachtakenbyCouncils.Thisisinadditiontoanyotheroccasionswhenofficialswouldrespondtocomplaintsfrommembersofthepublic,otheragenciesandDARDstaffregardingpotentialbreachesofDisqualificationOrders.DARDactivelyencouragesmembersofthepublictoreportanysuspicionsofnon-compliancewithaDisqualificationOrder,oranyotherinstancewhereanimalwelfaremaybeaffected.On30September2015,32keeperswererecordedintheAWDRasbeingsubjecttoaDisqualificationOrder(nineoftheseOrdersweremadeunderthe2011Act).

Section6(WorkingTogether)hasrelevancetotheenforcementofordersandrecommendsthattheenforcementbodiesdeveloptemplatesforOrders(i.e.Disqualification,Deprivation,Disposal)toavoidambiguityoromissions,whichwillalsopotentiallyassistmonitoring.

3.5 Stakeholders raised concerns about the training and guidance to DARD VS inspectors and call handlers, and expressed concerns about how inspections may adversely affect the more vulnerable in society

TheReviewexaminedthetrainingandguidanceprovidedtoDARDVSinspectorsandcallhandlers.

TheReviewfoundthatanimalwelfareinspectionsarecarriedoutbyspecialisttechnicalstaffwithinDARDVS.Training/refreshertrainingisregularlyprovidedbytheWelfareandZoonosesBranchwithinDARDVS.

Staffinstructionsforanimalwelfareinspectionsareupdatedasandwhenrequired(e.g.followingchangesinlegislationorreviewofbestpracticeinacase)toensureconsistencyofapproachandcompliancewiththelegislation.TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDVScontinuetoreviewpolicies,proceduresandstandardformsandguidanceasandwhentheneedarises.GuidanceandstaffinstructionsonanimalwelfarearemadeavailabletoallstaffviaDARD’sIntranet.Legaladviceissoughtasnecessaryregardinginterpretationofthe2011Act,andanychangesaffectingimplementationarecascadedtostaff.InspectionproceduresareregularlymonitoredbyDARDVSlinemanagersandstaffwithinDARDVSWelfareandZoonosesBranchtoensurecompliancewiththeprocess.Whereappropriate,trainingcontentisbenchmarkedagainstthatprovidedbyotherdevolvedadministrations.

TheInterimReportrecommendedthatDARDVScontinuetotrainstaffintheimplementationandenforcementoftheappropriatelegislation,andcontinuetouse

Page34


lessonslearnedfromcasereviewsasalearningopportunity.Italsorecommendedthattraining(includingtrainingofcallhandlers)isregularlyreviewedbyDARDVS,and,ifanyissuesaredetected,thatremedialactionistaken.StakeholderswhorespondedtotheconsultationontheReview’sInterimReportweregenerallycontentwiththeserecommendationsandsotheyhavebeencarriedforwardtothisReport.

TheReviewfoundthatDARDVShasasysteminplacetoraiseconcernsaboutvulnerablepeoplewithsocialservicesandthatDARDVSstaffmayinformherdkeepersoftheservicesprovidedbyRuralSupport.RuralSupporthasbeenestablishedasalisteningandsignpostingservicetoassistfarmersintimesofemotionaldistress,suiciderisk,financialproblems,inheritanceissues,physicalandmentalhealth,farmingpaperworkandbureaucracy.TheReviewalsoestablishedthatDARDVSallowsaherdkeepertohaveathirdpartypresentduringaninspection,iftheywish,whichmayassistconcernedfarmers.TheReviewhasthereforenotmaderecommendationsontheseissues.

Recommendations

Recommendation 4: DARDVStoreviewperformancestandardsaspartofthepost-implementationreviewoftheanimalwelfareenhancementstoAPHIS.

Recommendation 5:DARDVStomonitorthelevelandoutcomeofanonymousandvexatiouscallsandifnecessaryreviewtheirprocedures.Inaddition,theyshouldconsiderreportingthenumberofanonymousandvexatiouscallsintheannualreport(seeSection7.5).

Recommendation 6:DARDVStocontinuetoreviewpolicies,procedures,standardformsandguidanceasandwhentheneedarises(e.g.changesinlegislation,reviewofbestpracticeinacase).

Recommendation 7:DARDVStoincorporatelessonslearnedfromcasereviewsinstafftrainingintheimplementationandenforcementoftheappropriatelegislation.

Recommendation 8: DARDVStocontinuewiththecurrentarrangementofmonitoringtheeffectivenessofcall-handlingand,ifanyproblemsaredetected,provideadditionaltraining.

Page35




Section 4Delivery Structures - Non-Farmed Animals

Page36


Delivery Structures - Non-Farmed Animals4.1 Background

TheintroductionoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act)gaveCouncilsstatutorypowersfromApril2012toenforcethelegislationinrespectofnon-farmedanimals,forexample,domesticpetsofanyvertebratespeciesandequines.Priortothat,nosingleorganisationinNorthernIrelandwaswhollyresponsiblefortheenforcementofnon-farmedanimalwelfarelegislation.ThesameprovisionsasnotedinSection3.1withregardtofarmedanimalsalsoapplytonon-farmedanimals.

TheanimalwelfareserviceprovidedbyCouncilsisfundedonanannualbasisbyDARD,althoughCouncilshavediscretionoverhowtheyenforcethelegislation.

TheanimalwelfareserviceismanagedunderthegovernanceoftheAnimalWelfareProjectBoard.TheBoardischairedbyaChiefEnvironmentalHealthOfficerandhasrepresentationfromDARD.ThisBoardmeetsquarterlytomakedecisionsinrespectofanyaspectofanimalwelfareenforcement,andtomonitorspendagainsttheannualbudgetprovidedforanimalwelfare.

TheCouncilscurrentlyuseaclusterapproachtodelivertheanimalwelfareservice.ThisiscarriedoutbyfiveCouncilsregions,includingaleadco-ordinatingCouncilwholiaisedirectlywithDARDandtheotherCouncils.FermanaghandOmaghDistrictCouncilaretheleadCouncilintheco-ordinatingrole.AnimalWelfareOfficers(AWOs)delivertheserviceonthegroundwithmanagementandadministrativesupport.OnweekdaysPriority1callsreceivedbetweenthehoursof5pmand9amwillberespondedtoonthenextworkingday.Anemergencyon-callserviceisprovidedduring9amto5pmonweekendsandbankholidaystotakewelfarereports.Priority1-callsmadeduringthistimearereferredtotheon-callAWOand,inlinewiththePrioritisationGuidance,willberespondedtobytheendofthenextday.AWOsworkacrossallCouncilareasandthepowersprovidedinthelegislationallowofficerstotakearangeofenforcementactionsinresponsetoananimalwelfarecase.DependinguponthecircumstancesanAWOmaychoosetoissuebasicadviceandguidance,giveawarning,issuealegallybindingImprovementNotice,orpursueaprosecution.

TheanimalwelfareserviceoriginallycommencedwithfiveAWOsinpost.Asaresultofthedemandontheservice,itwasagreedbytheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardinOctober2012torecruitafurthertwoAWOsfromJanuary2013.Followingapost-implementationreviewoftheserviceinMarch2013,itwasdecidedtoincreasethenumberofAWOsfurtherandanadditionaltwonewAWOsstartedemploymentinAugust2013,bringingthetotaltonine.

Page37


CurrentstaffinglevelsfortheCouncilanimalwelfareservicearesetoutinTable2:

Table 2 - Allocation of Staff Resources

Staff resource Number

ChiefOfficers 0.1*

LineManagers 3.1*

AWOs 9

Administrativestaff 6

*FullTimeEquivalent

Thecurrentoperationalmodel,comprisingnineAWOs,allowstheservicetobemaintainedacrosstheProvince,enablingmanagerstoplanforperiodsofleave,trainingofstaffandpeakdemandsontheservice.

TheAWOsaretrainedbyavarietyofbodies,includingtheRoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(RSPCA),theDonkeySanctuaryandtheCollegeofAgriculture,FoodandRuralEnterprise(CAFRE).

Councilshaveinplaceaseriesofprocedures,processesandformsforthepurposeofallowingthemtodealwithallaspectsoftheanimalwelfareservice.ThisaimstoensurethatastructuredandconsistentapproachismaintainedacrossalltheCouncilregions.

Aspartoftheiradministrativesupport,CouncilsemploytrainedcallhandlersandthesearebasedinthefiveCouncillocations.Between1April2012and30September2015over18,000calls1werereceivedinrespectofnon-farmedanimalwelfarecases.CallsareprioritisedbasedonRSPCAGuidance,whichwasrevisedtotakeaccountofthedifferencesbetweenthe2011ActandtheAnimalWelfareAct2006(theequivalentlegislationinEnglandandWales).

Priority 1:isallocatedtocaseswhereitislikelythatinashorttimetheanimal’sdistressorpainmayincreasesignificantlyortheanimalmightdie.Targetresponsetimeisbytheendofthenextdayofthecomplaintbeingreceived.Performanceresponsetimetargetsetis100%.

Priority 2:isallocatedtocaseswhereananimalappearstobemalnourished,neglected,orabandoned.Targetresponsetimeiswithinthreeworkingdays.Performanceresponsetimetargetsetis75%.

1Councils record the number of all calls received to their animal welfare contact numbers. However a proportion of calls (approximately 16%) are not related to non-farmed animal welfare and are referred onto other agencies. The number of follow-up calls made by Councils when investigating cases are not recorded.

Page38


Priority 3: isallocatedtocaseswherethereisnosignificantriskthatthesituationwillgetworsebutaninvestigationisnecessary.Targetresponsetimeiswithinfourteenworkingdays.Performanceresponsetimetargetsetis75%.

Figure2showsthatperformanceagainstresponsetimesforeachlevelofcallpriorityhasimprovedsignificantlysincetheCouncilservicecameintooperation.

Figure 2: Achievement of Call Prioritisation Response Times

TheReviewrecommendsthatCouncilsshouldcontinuetoreporttotheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardonachievementoftheperformancetargetssetoutintheirCallPrioritisationpolicyandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardshouldcontinuetomonitorandreviewperformanceandresponsetimetargets.

Page39


Animal Welfare Officer Responsibilities

AnimalWelfareOfficers(AWOs)areemployedbyCouncilstoenforcethe2011Actwithregardtonon-farmedanimals.FollowingLocalGovernmentReformcomingintoeffectinApril2015,NorthernIrelandnowhas11Councils.AnimalWelfareisdeliveredonasub-regionalbasisin5regions.Theservicemaybecontactedfrom9am-5pmonnormalbusinessdays,andoncallcoverisavailableatweekendsandonbankholidaysfrom9am-5pm.

AWOscoverlargeareas,rangingfromBelleektoMagherafeltinthewesternregion;fromKeadytoStrangfordinthesouthernregion;fromBallykellytoCarrickfergusinthenorthernregion,andfromLoughNeaghtotheArdsPeninsulaintheeasternregion.BelfastCityCouncilisaseparateregion,duetotheincreasedconcentrationofthepopulation.ThelargeareasmeanthatplottinganefficientrouteeachdayisimportanttoensuretheAWOsattendasmanyreportedcasesaspossible.Callsaretakenbyadministrativestaffand,basedontheinformationreceivedfromthecaller,areprioritisedaccordingtoanagreedPrioritisationGuideoperatedacrossallregions.ThisprioritisationletstheAWOknowthetimeframeforrespondingtoeachcase.Eachcasepresentsitsownchallenges,rangingfromshortroutinecheckstolongervisitswheremultipleanimalsmayneedtobeexaminedandinextremecasestakenintopossession.SomesituationsrequirethattwopeoplearepresentwhileothersmaydemandtheassistanceofthePSNI,DARD,otheragenciesand/orAWOsfromotherregions.

Duringavisit,anAWOconsiderstheanimal’swelfareandexaminestheanimalforsignsofdistressorillness.Thismayinvolvecheckingtheanimal’sskin,eyes,hooves,etc.TheAWOneedstobecomfortableworkingwithanimalsandinavarietyofsettings.TheAWOalsoinspectstheanimals’environment,toensureitisappropriatelycleanandsafe,andthatsufficientfoodandwaterhasbeenprovided.IfanAWOhasconcernsaboutananimalorhowitisbeingkepttheycanissueanImprovementNoticewithalistofactionsthekeeperisrequiredtoundertaketoimprovetheanimal’sconditionwithinastipulatedtimeperiod.TheAWOalsohasthepowertotakeanimalsintothepossessionoftheCouncilandtransportthemtoasecureplaceifavetdeemsthisisnecessarytopreventsuffering.

Toensureanaccuraterecordiskept,followingeachcaseAWOswriteafullreportofwhattheywitnessedanddid,includinganyphotostheymayhavetaken,aswellasnotinganyconversationstheyhadwiththekeeperorotherpeoplepresent.Theyalsomakeanoteofeverytelephoneconversationandemailexchange.Thisvaluableevidenceisnecessaryintheeventoffutureprosecutions.

Page40


4.2 Some stakeholders felt that the animal welfare service was under resourced to deal with issues adequately

PriortoCouncilstakingonthenewanimalwelfareservice,thethenDARDMinister,MichelleGildernewannouncedthatafour-yearfundingstreamwouldbeprovidedtoCouncils.Atthetime,theinitialfouryearfundingstreamwasbeingdevisedandtheeconomicappraisalcompleted,therewasnohistoricalexpenditureorworkloadinformationavailableonwhichtoestimateandforecastthecoststhatwouldultimatelybeincurredasaresultofrespondingtoanimalwelfarecases.Itwasalsoextremelydifficulttopredictcostsintermsoftakinganimalsintopossession,i.e.collection,care,transport,disposalandlegalcosts.Addendumtotheeconomicappraisalwerecompletedin2014and2015totakeintoaccountactualexpenditureandtoextendthefundingtoencompassthe2015/16financialyear.Table3outlinestheoriginalfouryearfundingstreamandtheoneyearextension.

Table 3: Budget allocation to Councils from DARD for animal welfare service

Year Budget

2011-12* £760,000

2012-13 £780,000

2013-14 £800,000

2014-15 £820,000

2015-16 £820,000

*budgetfor2011/12wasallocatedtoallowtheanimalwelfareservicetobesetup.

Fromcommencementoftheanimalwelfareserviceon2April2012to30September2015thenumberofcasesinvestigatedbyCouncilsisshowninTable4.

Table 4: Number of animal welfare cases investigated by Councils

Year Number of Cases

2012-13 4,280

2013-14 4,952

2014-15 4,754

2015-16* 2,291

Total 16,277

*Figuresatthemidpointoftheyeari.e.from1April2015–30September2015.

Page41


Inthe2013/14and2014/15financialyears,thefollowingfactorsaffectedCouncilspending:

• thecomplementofAWOsincreasedfromfivetonineinresponsetothevolumeofcalls;

• severalhighprofilecasesresultedinmultipleanimalseizureswhichincreasedcareandcollectioncosts;and

• legalcostsduetocasepreparationandprosecutionsincreasedascaseworkrelatingtopreviousandin-yearcasesgatheredmomentum.

InboththesefinancialyearsCouncilsidentifiedthattheywouldrequireadditionalresourceofaround£300,000tomeetservicedelivery.FollowingarecommendationbytheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardtheadditionalfundingwasapprovedandprovidedbyDARD.

Councilsspendinrelationtoanimalwelfarecanbecategorisedintofixedcosts(e.g.salaryandoverheads)andvariablecosts(thosecostswhichvarydependingondemande.g.careandcollectionandlegalexpenses).Fixedcostshaveremainedreasonablystablebutthepercentageofthebudgetusedtofundvariablecosts,inparticularcareandcollection,hasrisensharply.In2012/13thepercentageofthebudgetusedoncareandcollectioncostswas3.9%butthisroseto24.9%in2013/14andremainedhighat24%in2014/15.

Variablecostsaredeterminedbydemandontheservice,aswellasthecomplexityandscaleofcases.Forexample,Councilsreportedthatinoneequinecasewhereoveronehundredhorseshadtobeexamined,twentysixequineshadtobetakenintotheirpossession(onediedandanotherhadtobeeuthanized).Thecostinrespectofcareandcollection,veterinaryandlegalbillsinthatcasewasinexcessof£77,000.InanothercaseCouncilshadtotaketwentyequinesandthreedogsintotheirpossessionfromoneowner.Thecostinrespectofcareandcollection,veterinaryandlegalbillsinthisincidentwasinexcessof£100,000.Thenatureofthesevariablecosts,suchascareandcollectionofanimalsandlegalcosts,meanthatforecastingexpenditureisdifficult.

TheReviewfoundthat,often,animalstakenintothepossessionbyCouncilsremainedundertheirresponsibilityforextendedperiods,pendingthecompletionofthelegalprocess,andconsequentlyCouncilsincurredsignificantcostsincaringfortheseanimals.StreamliningtheprocessingofapplicationsforDisposalOrderstoensurethatanimalsremainincarefortheminimumperiodisdealtwithinSection6.DealingwithabandonedequinespresentsadditionalchallengesandtheseissuesareconsideredatSection9.3.

TheReviewfoundthatcontractsfortheprovisionofservices,suchascareandcollectionofanimalsandveterinaryprovisionaresecuredthroughlocalgovernmentprocurementprocedurestoensurevalueformoneyandtransparency.

DARDofficialsmetwiththeCouncilsearlyin2015/16toconsiderthebudgetforthatyear.Followingthemeetingandinternalconsiderationofbudgets,DARDconfirmedthattheyhadbeenabletosecureadditionalfundingwhich,whencombinedwiththe

Page42


initialbudget,givesCouncilsanoverallbudgetof£1.25millionfor2015/16.TheReviewnotesthat,withregardtofundingpost2015/16,DARDhasinitiatedabusinesscaseforthenextComprehensiveSpendingReview(CSR).TheReview,therefore,retainstherecommendationintheInterimReport,whichwaswelcomedbystakeholders,thatDARDandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardcontinuetoreviewtherequiredleveloffundingforenforcementofthenon-farmedanimalwelfareserviceandthatCouncilscontinuetoseekefficiencieswerepossibleandidentifysavings,whilestillmaintainingthecurrentlevelsofservice.

4.3 Some stakeholders felt that Local Government Reform (LGR) would provide an opportunity to review the delivery of the animal welfare service by Councils

WiththeintroductionofLGRthenumberofCouncilsreducedfromtwenty-sixtoelevenfrom1April2015.Withthisinmind,theReviewconsideredthefuturestructureofthedeliveryoftheanimalwelfareservicebyCouncils.Itconsideredanumberofpossibledeliverymodelsincluding:

• maintainingthecurrentarrangements(fivenewCouncilregionsincludingaleadco-ordinatingCouncil);

• deliverybyelevenCouncils;

• deliverybythreeoftheexistingCouncilregionsincludingoneastheleadco-ordinatingCouncil;or

• deliverybyoneCouncil.

InitsInterimReporttheReviewrecognisedthattheoperatingmodelfortheanimalwelfareservicewasadecisionforCouncilstotakeinthecontextoftheirneworganisationalstructures.However,itrecommendedthattheChiefExecutivesoftheelevennewCouncilsshouldconsidertheinformationgatheredduringtheReviewwhendecidingonthenewoperatingmodel,takingcognisanceofcurrentresourcepressuresandtheneedtomaximiseeffectivenessandefficiency.GiventhetimescaleswithinwhichthenewCouncilsneededtomakedecisionsonfuturestructures,theReviewdecidedtoforwardacopyoftheworkdoneinthisareatothenewChiefExecutives.TheReviewrecommendsthattheChiefExecutivesoftheelevennewCouncilsshouldnotifyDARDassoonaspossibleofthefuturestructuretoinformbudgetdiscussions.

TheReviewfoundthat,insomeCouncils,decisionstoinstigatelegalproceedingswereapprovedbytheCouncil(i.e.electedmembers)withintheCouncilareawheretheallegedoffencewascommitted.TheInterimReportnotedthatasignificantnumberofCouncilshaddelegatedthepowertoinstigatelegalproceedingstotherelevantDirectororHeadofDepartmentbutwherethiswasnotthecase,thedecisiontoinstigateaprosecutioncouldbedelayedpendingagreementbytheelectedmembersataCouncilmeeting.TheInterimReportacknowledgedthattheseekingofapprovalbymembersoftheCouncilcouldpotentiallydelaylegalproceedings,whichincreasescarecosts,andrecommendedthatCouncilsadoptaconsistentapproach.CouncilswhorespondedtotheInterimReportgenerallysupportedthisrecommendationbutnotedthatitwasamatterforeachindividualCouncil.WhileacknowledgingthatCouncilsareautonomous,theReviewretainsthisrecommendation.

Page43


4.4 Some stakeholders felt that AWOs were inadequately trained

TheReviewconsideredthecurrenttrainingforAWOs.AWOsundertakeafourweektrainingprogrammeonappointment,whichincludesdeskbasedlearningwithavarietyoftrainersincludingRSPCAaswellasworkshadowingwithestablishedAWOs.Theyalsoreceivetraininginrelationtotheservingofnotices,interviewingundercaution(PoliceandCriminalEvidence–PACE),dealingwithdifficultpeople,loneworkingaswellasspecifictraininginrelationtoequines.AWOsalsohaveanannualtrainingneedsanalysiscompletedwiththeirlinemanager.Inaddition,guidancenotes,standardisedformsandproceduresareavailabletothemontheCouncils’intranetsite.

CouncilshavebenchmarkedtrainingwiththatofsimilarofficersinGreatBritain.TheReviewfoundtrainingtobeofahighstandardandCouncilsseetrainingasapriority,butrecommendsthatexperiencegainedfromongoinginvestigationsandlegalcasesisbuiltintofuturetraining,guidanceandpractice.

TheReviewalsoconsideredtheguidanceandprocedureswhichhavebeendevelopedbyCouncilsfortheirstaffdealingwithnon-farmedanimalwelfare.ThemajorityofthesearesharedviatheCouncils’dedicatedITsystem,withanychangesorupdatesbeingdisseminatedanddiscussedatAWOteammeetings.

TheReviewidentifiedthatguidancefromthePublicProsecutionService(PPS)inrelationtooffendingbychildrenandyoungpeopleisnotcurrentlyincludedinCouncilproceduresandsotheInterimReportrecommendedthatthisbeprovidedtostaff.TheInterimReportalsorecommendedthatCouncilsprovidespecifictrainingondealingwithvulnerableadults.TheserecommendationswerewelcomedbystakeholdersandhavebeencarriedforwardintothisReport.

TheReviewfoundthatinmostcasestheproceduresforAWOswerewelldocumented,butitrecognisedthatsomedraftproceduresneedtobeformalised.TheInterimReportrecommendedtheseareformalisedandthatCouncilscontinuetoregularlyreviewallprocedures.TheInterimReportalsorecommendedthatCouncilscontinuetoundertakeaperiodicreviewofpolicies,procedures,standardformsandguidancedocuments,asgoodpracticeandtoaddressproceduralgaps.

TheInterimReportalsorecommendedthattheCouncilsperiodicallyconductaconsistencyaudit,asthepublicarekeentoensurethatenforcementofthelegislationisconsistentacrossthefiveCouncilregions.TheserecommendationswerewelcomedbystakeholdersandsoarecarriedintotheFinalReport.

Page44


Animal Welfare Case Study

WhentheCouncilanimalwelfareservicereceivedacallfromamemberofthepublicreporting“thatadoghaddiedandthebodywasstillinitskennel,”thisinformationwasloggedontheITsystembythecallhandlerandpassedtoanAnimalWelfareOfficer(AWO)toinvestigate.PriortoundertakingasitevisittheAWOestablishediftherewasanyotherbackgroundinformationavailablewithintheCouncilconcerningtheaddresswherethedeaddogwasallegedtobe.

UponarrivalatthehousetheAWOspoketotheoccupants,awomanandayoungmale,beforeexaminingthebodyofthedog.Thisexaminationfoundittobeveryunderweight,withitsribsclearlyvisible.Therewereothersignsthatthedogcouldhavepossiblysufferedfromstarvation,suchasabinhavingbeenknockedoveranditscontentsdisturbed,aswellasnosignoffoodorbowls.TheAWOtookphotographsofthedog’sbodyandthepremisestoaddtothecasefileasevidence.

FollowingtheinitialinspectiontheAWOcarriedoutaPACE(PoliceandCriminalEvidence)interview,withthefemaleoccupantofthehousewhowassuspectedofcommittinganoffence.Thedog’sbodywasseizedasevidenceandapostmortemwascarriedout.

Thepostmortemconfirmedthatthedogwasseriouslyunderweightforitsageandbreed,andthatithaddiedduetostarvation,withevidenceofbitsofcardboardboxesinthedog’sstomach.Thisindicatedthatthedog,initsdesperatehunger,hadbeeneatingthecontentsoftheoverturnedbinsfoundatthepremises.TheAWOdocumentedalltheactionsandcommunicationsinthiscaseandwroteafinalreportforthecasefilewhichwasthenreviewedbytheirLineManager.ThecasewasthenreportedtotherelevantCouncilCommitteewitharecommendationthatformalprosecutionproceedingsbeinstigated.ThiswasapprovedandthecasefilewasthenforwardedtoLegalServiceswhoinitiatedtheprosecutionproceedings.ThedefendantwassummonedtocourtandfoundguiltyofanoffenceunderSection4(Causingunnecessarysuffering)andSection9(failuretoensurewelfareofanimals)oftheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011.Thejudgesentencedtheindividualtofourmonthsinprison,suspendedforthreeyears,disqualifiedherfromkeepinganimalsfor10years,andorderedhertopay£250costs.

4.5 Some stakeholders suggested that once an Improvement Notice is issued it must be followed up

Whendealingwithananimalwelfarecase,anAWOhasanumberofoptionsavailableinordertoresolvethesituation.Theseareprovidingadvice,givingawarning,issuingtheownerwithalegallybindingImprovementNoticeorpursuingaprosecution.Indecidingwhichcourseofactionisappropriate,theAWOwillassessthesituationbyconsideringallavailableevidenceandusingtheadvicecontainedin‘GuidanceNotesforCouncilAnimalWelfareOfficers.’

Page45


WhereanImprovementNoticeisissued,itwillspecifythenatureofthenon-compliance,theremedialactionrequiredtoachievecomplianceandthetimeallowedtocompletetherequiredwork.TheReviewfoundthatImprovementNoticesarefollowedupbyAWOstoensurethatcompliancehasbeenachieved.Inthecaseofnon-complianceand,dependingontheoffence,theAWOmayissueanextensiontotheImprovementNoticeorconsiderprosecution.

TheReviewfoundthatCouncilsrecorddetailsoffollowupvisitsinrelationtoImprovementNoticesandtheyaremonitoredbylinemanagersandreportedtotheAnimalWelfareProjectBoard.ThenumberofImprovementNoticesissuedandcompliedwitheachyearhasbeenrelativelyconsistentasshowninTable5andFigure3.

InordertogetafullpictureofCouncilenforcementaction,theReviewlookedatthenumberofprosecutionstakenandconvictionssecuredbyCouncils.TheReviewfoundthatthenumberofbothprosecutionsandconvictionshasrisenyearonyearasthe2011ActhasbeddedinasshowninTable5andFigure3below.TheReviewhasnotmadeanyrecommendationsinthisarea.

Table 5: Number of Improvement Notices issued by Councils as well as the number of prosecutions

Year Improvement Notices

Improvement Notices

Complied With

Prosecutions Convictions

2012/13 189 164 1 1

2013/14 215 183 3 3

2014/15 194 165 28 28

2015/16* 98 65 9 9

Total 696 577 41 41

*Figuresfortheperiod1April2015to30September2015.

Page46


Figure 3: Number of Improvement Notices issued by Councils, number of Improvement Notices complied with, and number of prosecutions.

4.6 Stakeholders felt that Councils should act proactively (looking for and preventing welfare concerns) rather than reactively (responding to complaints)

TheReviewfoundthattheoriginalintentionhadbeenforthisservicetobeanenforcementone(i.e.reactive).Councilshave,however,alsotakenaproactiveapproachwhenresourceallows.Thishasincludedattendanceathorsefairsandcarbootsalesatwhichanimalsaresometimessold.Theyhavealsosupportedotherorganisations,forexampleDogsTrustat‘BarkinthePark’events,microchippingclinicsandPDSA(ThePeople’sDispensaryforSickAnimals)events.AWOsregularlyissuetheCodesofPracticeduringroutinevisitsandproviderelevantmessagese.g.duringsummermonthstheydistributeleafletsremindingdogownersabouttheeffectsofheatondogsleftincarsduringhotweather.Theyalsoworkcloselywithanumberofanimalwelfaregroupsandhavedistributedleafletsaboutanimalwelfaretooutletssuchasveterinarypracticesandpetshops.Suchtargetedproactiveworkisbeneficialandshouldbeencouragedwhenitcanbeaccommodatedwithinresource.TheReviewiscontent,however,thatenforcementmustremainthepriority.

Page47


Recommendations

Recommendation 9:CouncilscontinuetoreporttotheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardonachievementoftheperformancetargetssetoutintheirCallPrioritisationpolicyandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardshouldcontinuetomonitorandreviewperformanceandresponsetimetargets.

Recommendation 10:Councilscontinuetoreviewthevolumeofwork,budgetandspendonaquarterlybasisandcontinuetoseektocreateefficienciesandsavingswherepossibleand,inconjunctionwithDARDandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoard,continuetoreviewtherequiredleveloffundingforenforcementofthenon-farmedanimalwelfareservice.

Recommendation 11:ChiefExecutivesoftheelevennewCouncilsshouldconsidertheinformationprovidedtothembytheReviewwhenmakingdecisionsabouttheoperatingmodelforthedeliveryoftheanimalwelfareservice.

Recommendation 12:CouncilsadviseDARDassoonaspossibleofthestructuresinrelationtotheanimalwelfareservicepostLGRtoinformdecisionsinrelationtobudgetplanning.

Recommendation 13: EachCounciladoptsaconsistentapproachinrelationtodelegatingthepowertoinstigatelegalproceedings.

Recommendation 14:Councilsbuildintofuturetraining,guidanceandpracticetheexperiencegainedfromongoinginvestigationsandlegalcases.

Recommendation 15:CouncilsprovideguidancetoAWOsinrelationtooffendingbychildrenandyoungpeople.

Recommendation 16:Councilsprovidespecifictrainingondealingwithvulnerableadults.

Recommendation 17: CouncilstoformalisetheprocedureswhicharecurrentlyindraftformforAWOsandcontinuetoundertakeroutineperiodicreviewofpolicies,procedures,standardformsandguidancedocumentsasgoodpractice,addressproceduralgapsandperiodicallyconductconsistencyaudits.

Page48




Section 5Delivery Structures – Wild Animals

Page49


Delivery Structures – Wild Animals5.1 Background

TheprimarystatutoryresponsibilitiesofthePoliceServiceofNorthernIreland(PSNI)areoutlinedinthePolice(NI)Act2000.Section32ofthisActstatesthegeneraldutyofpoliceofficers:

(a)toprotectlifeandproperty;

(b)topreserveorder;

(c)topreventthecommissionofoffences;and

(d)whereanoffencehasbeencommitted,totakemeasurestobringtheoffendertojustice.

TheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act),givesthePSNIpowertodealwithwelfareoffencesinvolvingwildanimalsandformoreseriousanimalwelfareoffences,suchasanimalfighting,orwhereothercriminalactivitiesareinvolved.ThePSNIalsohaslegalresponsibilitywhereananimalisfoundwanderingonthepublicroadundertheAnimals(NI)Order1976andtheRoads(NI)Order1993.

Inaddition,thePSNIenforcestheWildlife(NI)Order1985asamendedbytheWildlifeandNaturalEnvironmentAct(NI)2011.ThisActcontainsprovisionswhichprotectsthewelfareofwildanimalsand,insomecases,overlapswiththe2011Act.

ThePSNIisamemberofthePartnershipforActionAgainstWildlifeCrimeinNorthernIreland(PAWNI).PAWNIconsistsofanumberoforganisationsthatworkinpartnershiptoreducewildlifecrimebyraisingawarenessandpromotingeffectiveenforcement.

ThegroupalsoliaiseswithotherrelevantorganisationsthroughouttheRepublicofIrelandincludingtheNationalParksandWildlifeService,AnGardaSíochánaandtheIrishRaptorSociety.

ThePSNIcurrentlyhasover6,800policeofficers.Allpoliceofficersaretrainedinvestigatorsand,inaddition,sinceApril2007thePSNIhashadadedicated“WildlifeLiaisonOfficer”(WLO)whoprovidesadvice,supportandassistancetoofficersonwildlifeandanimalwelfareoffencesandlegislation.

ThePSNIoperatesa24/7servicedealingwithbothemergencyandnon-emergencyreports.

WhiletheReviewrecognisesthattheChiefConstableisoperationallyindependentithasmaderecommendationsforconsideration.

SincetheintroductionoftheCouncil’sanimalwelfareservice,thenumberofanimalwelfarereportstothePSNIhasbeendecreasingonanannualbasisasshowninTable6.

Page50


Therehasbeenariseinanimalwelfarereportsfrom2014to2015,buttheprojectedfullyeartotalnumberofreportsisstillestimatedtobesignificantlylowerthanthefinalfiguresfor2011,2012and2013.

Table 6: Total number of incidents/reports reported to PSNI and breakdown of animal welfare/cruelty related reports2

Year Total incidentsreported to PSNI

Animal welfare/crueltyrelated reports

2011 491,059 2,169

2012 488,537 1,603

2013 493,709 1,245

2014 502,385 821

2015* 323,784 853

*January2015–August2015

5.2 Stakeholders asked for a dedicated animal welfare unit within the police

Somestakeholderscalledforincreasedpoliceresourcetodealwithanimalwelfarecrimes,suchasadynamicspecialistunitthatwouldfunctionacrossNorthernIrelandorspecialistwildlifeofficersineachofthe11Councilareas.WhiletheChiefConstableisoperationallyindependent,inlightofthesestakeholdercomments,theReviewconsideredthecurrentoperatingmodel.ThePSNIhasinexcessof6,800officersavailabletorespondtoincidents.Thesearefullytrainedofficerswhoareskilledtoinvestigateanddealwithavarietyofoffences.TheyhavespecialistassistancefromtheWLO,ifnecessary.Thisoperatingmodelmeansthatlocalofficerscanbeavailablequicklyinanylocationtodealwithanincident.

TheReviewconsidersthisapproachtoberational,basedonskillsofofficers,thedecliningnumberofanimalwelfarerelatedcallssinceCouncilstookresponsibilityfornon-farmedanimals,andresourceconstraintswithintheorganisation.

5.3 Stakeholders questioned PSNI officers’ knowledge of their animal welfare role

Since2002,thePSNIhaveincludedanimalwelfare/wildlifecrimeinthetrainingpackagedeliveredtostudentofficers.ThiswasinitiallydeliveredbytheUSPCA.FollowingtheemploymentoftheWLOin2007,responsibilityfordeliveringtrainingonwildlifeandanimalwelfaretoPSNIprobationersandoperationalofficershascomeunderhisorherremit.

2These figures relate to the total number of incidents/reports and not to confirmed crimes. Crimes are classified according to the Home Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime. Animal Welfare is not included in Home Office recording figures. PSNI cannot amend this as these are official Home Office guidelines.

Page51


TheReviewreceivedinputfromavarietyofstakeholderswhoreferredtosomecaseswhereitappearedthatthelocalPSNIofficerswerenotfullyawareoftheirrole.Forexample,incidentswerereportedoflocalofficersmovinghorsesfromtheroadintoafieldandtakingnofurtheraction.WhiletheReviewdidnothavesufficientdetailtoconfirmstakeholderinput,itconcludedthatnotallofficersmaybeawareoftheirroleswhenitcomestoanimalwelfare.

TheReviewwentontoexaminetheanimalwelfaretrainingreceivedbyPSNIofficersandtheresourcesavailabletohelpthemwithanimalwelfarecases.

PSNIofficersandstaffhaveaccesstoanextensiveinternalwebsitewhichcontainsinformationandlegislationonanimalwelfare,andiscontinuouslyupdated.AninformationpageonanimalseizuresiscurrentlyavailabletoofficersandcanbeaccessedthroughtheirBlackberrydevice.Thisincludesinformationonseizuresunderthe2011Act,thecurrentserviceprovider,welfarelaw,wildlifelawandtheroleoftheWLO,aswellasvariouswildlifecrimeleafletscreatedbyPAWNImembersincollaborationwiththePSNI.

AsandwhenrequiredtheWLOsendsoutservice-wideemailstoallPSNIstaffandofficerswithinformationandvariousleafletsattached.Theseemailsprovideup-to-dateinformationonlegislationchangesandguidancetoallPSNIstaff.Informationprovidedtoofficersincludesflowcharts,postersandleafletswithguidanceonproceduresfordealingwithanimalsontheroad,deerpoaching,persecutionofbirdsofprey,fishpoaching,etc.

TheWLOalsoprovidestrainingtoallnewrecruitofficers.NewrecruitwillbegininMay2016and,followingarecommendationinthisReportthewildlifeandanimalwelfareinputwillincludeagreedinputfromtheCouncils’AnimalWelfareOfficers(AWOs).CouncilsandthePSNIhavealreadyagreedhowthiswillbeimplemented.ThesametrainingwasprovidedtothecallhandlermanagersinNovember2015.TheWLOalsooffersanddeliversfurthertrainingtogroupsofofficersinspecificareasortoawideraudienceasandwhenrequiredorrequested.Forexample,trainingwasdeliveredtoallofficersinOmagh,Dungannon,CookstownandFermanaghattherequestoftrainers.

DuringtheReviewtheteamidentifiedapotentialgapininformationavailabletoestablishedofficers,andsuggestedthatthePSNIprovideoperationalofficerswithguidancethatcanbeaccessedwhenoutonpatrol,advisingontheanimalwelfareresponsibilitiesofeachofthethreeenforcementbodies(PSNI,DARDVS,Councils).Focusingonthecommonanimalwelfareoffencespoliceofficersarelikelytoinvestigatee.g.animalfighting,theReviewispleasedtonotethat,followingtheInterimReport,thePSNIhavealreadyimplementedthissuggestionandthatguidancehasbeenputinplacetoassistoperationalofficers,includingthemostrecentCouncilAWOcontactdetails.

TheReviewrecommendsthatthePSNIcontinuestoincludeanimalwelfareintheirnewrecruittrainingpackage,withadditionalinputfromCouncilAWOs;andupdateandregularlyreviewguidanceonthePSNIintranetsiteforoperationalofficerstoincludecommonoffences/incidents.

AfurtherrecommendationhasbeenputforwardunderSection6inrelationtoestablishingprotocolsforenforcementbodiesworkingtogetherincertainsituations.

Page52


Cody Case Study

OneofthefirstsuccessfulprosecutioncasesthatthePSNItookundertheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011wasthatofacolliedog,Cody,athreeyearoldfamilypet.OnemorningCodyreturnedtoherhomewithhorrificinjuries,seeminglycausedbyhavingflammableliquidpouredoverherandsetalight.Cody’sownerinitiallycontactedtheirvetandthenrangthepolice.Duetotheseriousnessofthecase,andthepossibilityofothercriminality,thePSNItookforwardtheinvestigationinsteadofpassingthecaseontotheCouncil’sAnimalWelfareOfficer.APSNIcommunityofficerfromCody’sneighbourhoodwasassignedtothecase,havingvaluablelocalknowledgeandcontactsthatwouldproveuseful.

TheofficerwasintouchwiththePSNI’sWildlifeLiaisonOfficeratthebeginningoftheinvestigationtoclarifytheoffencesanysuspectsmaybechargedwith.AsthefamilyandvetwereseeingtoCody’sneeds,furtherpoliceinvolvementinensuringherwelfarewasnotrequired.ThePSNIhoweverdostepinonotheroccasionswhenitissuspectedthatananimalissuffering.

Theofficertreatedthecaseashewouldanyothercriminalinvestigation.HestartedbyarrangingforphotographstobetakenofCodyandmakinginitialinquiriesinthelocalcommunity.Hehandedoutaleafletinthelocalareaappealingforinformation,andwasconstantlyintouchwiththefamilytogatherandshareanyinformationthatwasreceived.Thelocalcommunitywereveryhelpful,andassistedtheofficerinobtainingCCTVfootageshowingthemovementsofpotentialsuspects.

Asaresultofinformationprovidedbythelocalcommunitytheofficerwasabletoidentifytwosuspectsandbringtheminforquestioning.Interviewsandfurtherinvestigationsindicatedtotheofficerthatthesuspects’denialswerenottruthful,andtheywerechargedwithcausingunnecessarysufferingtoananimal.TheofficerworkedwiththePublicProsecutionServicetopreparethecaseagainstthesuspects,whichincludedevidencefromthevetwhohadinitiallytreatedCody.Unfortunately,despitethebesteffortsofthevet,theextentofCody’sinjuriesmeantthatshewasgoingtocontinuetosuffer,andsoshewashumanelyeuthanized.

Thegoodworkoftheofficerinbuildingacaseagainstthesuspectsledtothemchangingtheirstoriesduringthetrial,withonepleadingguiltytocausingunnecessarysufferingtoananimalandtheothertopervertingthecourseofjusticebylyingtothepolice.Theoffenderconvictedofpervertingthecourseofjusticewassentencedtosixmonthsimprisonment.TakingintoaccounttheseriousnessoftheinjuriescausedtoCody,thejudgeimposedasentenceof20monthsimprisonmentontheotheroffenderfortheoffenceofcausingunnecessarysufferingtoananimal.Thiswasclosetothemaximumprisonsentenceoftwoyearsthatwasavailableforthisoffenceatthattime.Theoffenderwasalsoorderedtopaycompensationof£2,600.

Page53


5.4 Stakeholders felt that call handlers should be more informed about the role of PSNI and other enforcement bodies

ThePSNIContactManagementCentreoperates24/7andemploysstaffbasedatthreecentres.Theyreceiveapproximately500,000callseachyear.CurrentlytheContactManagementCentrestaffundergofiveweeksofcallmanagementtraining.

TheReviewfoundthatalthoughcallhandlersreceivedtraining,nospecificanimalwelfareelementisincluded.InordertoensurethatthePSNIcallhandlersareawareoftheorganisation’sresponsibilitiesinrelationtoanimalwelfare,theInterimReportrecommendedthatCouncilAWOsinputintoPSNIcallhandlertrainingandinformationismadeavailableonthePSNIintranetsiteforreference.Inaddition,informationinrelationtotherolesoftheotherenforcementbodies,aswellasup-to-datecontactdetails,shouldbereadilyavailableontheintranetsite.TheReviewispleasedtonotethat,sincetheInterimReport,thisrecommendationhasbeentakenonboardandinNovember2015trainingwasprovidedtocallhandlermanagersasafirststep.

5.5 The Review looked at PSNI enforcement options

TheReviewfoundthatfourenforcementoptionsareavailabletoaPSNIofficerduringaninvestigationbutonlyoneoftheseoptionsiscurrentlyavailableduringthecourseofananimalwelfareinvestigation.Thefouroptionsareasfollows:

• Advice–Thismethodisonlysuitableforverylowlevelbreachese.g.minortrafficoffence.Itwouldnot,therefore,beconsideredasameansofdealingwithanimalwelfareoffence;

• Discretion–Guidanceprovidedtoofficersdividesoffencesintothreecategories:Green–suitablefordiscretion,amber–suitableonlyafterauthorityofsupervisor,red–notsuitable.Atpresent,thereisnoreferencetoanimalwelfareoffencesinanyofthesecategories,thereforediscretionitisnotlikelytobeused;

• Penalty Notice for Disorder (PND) –Issuedforspecificoffencessuchasretailtheft(under£200),criminaldamage(under£200),disorderlybehaviour,breachofthepeace(behaviourlikelytoleadto),impeding/obstructing/resistingaPoliceOfficer,indecentbehaviour(streeturination)anddrunkennessinapublicplace.AllPNDshaveafineof£85exceptindecentbehaviouranddrunkennessinapublicplacewherethePNDfineis£45.PNDsdealwithlessseriousoffencesandarenotdeemedasuitabledisposalmethodfortheseriousanimalwelfareoffencesinvestigatedbythePSNI;and

• Report to the Public Prosecution Service (PPS)–Anycrimethathasanidentifiableoffenderthatisnotsuitableforwordsofadvice,discretionorPNDshouldhaveafilesenttothePPS.DuetotheseriousnatureoftheoffencesinvestigatedbythePSNIunderthe2011Act,theonlyoptionthataPSNIofficercancurrentlyuseistoreportthecasetothePPSshouldtherebesufficientevidencetodoso.

Page54


TheReviewrecommendsthatthePSNI’scurrentenforcementpolicycontinues;namelythat,duetotheseriousnatureoftheoffencesunderthe2011ActinvestigatedbythePSNI,allsuchinvestigationsarereportedtothePPSfordirection.

5.6 The Review looked at how the PSNI monitored Disqualification Orders

CurrentlythePSNIhasnoofficialpolicyonmonitoringDisqualificationOrders.ItistheresponsibilityoftheinvestigatingofficertofollowupanyDisqualificationOrder,resultingfromacasethattheyinvestigate,toensurenobreachesareoccurring.ShouldthePSNIbecomeawareofapossiblebreachofanOrderaninvestigationwillcommence.

GiventhecurrentapproachtomonitoringDisqualificationOrders,theReviewconsideredwaystoformaliseandimprovetheprocess.TheReviewrecommendsthatamoreconsistentapproachtomonitoringDisqualificationOrdersisadoptedtoensurethatthePSNIlocalpolicingteam(wheretheoffenderresides)hasup-to-dateinformation.Thismeansthattheresponsibilitydoesnotsitsolelywiththeinvestigatingofficerwhomaytransfertoanewarea,orindeedthedisqualifiedpersonmaymoveaddress.

TheInterimReportrecommendedthattheinvestigatingofficer,uponsecuringaDisqualificationOrder,shouldforwarddetailstotheWLOandlocalpolicingteam;thattheinformationbeplacedandflaggedontheircomputersystem;theOrdershouldberegularlymonitored(atleasttwiceayear)andevidenceofmonitoringenteredontheircomputersystem.Twiceyearlychecksreflecttheseriousnatureoftheoffencesunderthe2011ActinvestigatedbythePSNI.Stakeholderscommentedthattheywouldliketoseemorefrequent,unannouncedvisits,aswellasarisk-basedassessmentpolicy.TheReviewconsidersthatunannouncedvisitsatleasttwiceyearlyaresufficienttoensurecompliancewiththeDisqualificationOrder.TherecommendationsetoutintheInterimreportisthereforeretained.

Page55


Recommendations

Recommendation 18:ThePSNIobtaininputfromCouncilAWOstotrainingfornewofficersandcallhandlers;andupdateandregularlyreviewguidanceonthePSNIintranetsiteforoperationalofficerstoincludecommonoffences/incidents.

Recommendation 19:ThePSNImakeinformationavailableforcallhandlersontheinvestigativeresponsibilitiesofPSNI,DARDandCouncilsforanimalwelfareissues,andtoincludecontactdetailsofrelevantagenciesshouldthematterneedreferredtoanotherbody.

Recommendation 20:ThePSNIcontinuetheircurrentenforcementpolicythatalloffencesunderthe2011ActinvestigatedbythePSNIarereportedtothePPSfordirection.

Recommendation 21:ThePSNIprovideoperationalofficerswithguidancethatcanbeaccessedwhenoutonpatrol,advisingonanimalwelfareresponsibilitiesofeachofthethreeenforcementbodies(PSNI,DARD,Council)andfocusingonthecommonanimalwelfareoffencespoliceofficersarelikelytoinvestigatei.e.animalfighting,horsesonroads.

Recommendation 22: ThePSNIinvestigatingofficer,uponsecuringaDisqualificationOrder,shouldforwarddetailstotheWildlifeLiaisonOfficerandlocalpolicingteam.Theinformationshouldalsobeplacedandflaggedontheircomputersystem.TheOrdershouldbeformallymonitoredatleasttwiceayearandevidenceofmonitoringshouldbeenteredontheircomputerforauditpurposes.

Page56




Section 6Working Together

(Facilitating Enforcement)

Page57


Working Together (Facilitating Enforcement)6.1 Background

TheenforcementstructuresetoutintheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act)isthat:

• DepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment(DARD)hasresponsibilityfortheenforcementofthewelfareoffarmedanimals;

• Councilshaveresponsibilityfortheenforcementofthewelfareofotheranimals,(domesticpetsofanyvertebratespeciesandequines);and

• ThePoliceServiceofNorthernIreland(PSNI)hasresponsibilityforenforcementinrespectofanimalfightingandanimalwelfareincidentswhereothercriminalactivitiesareinvolved.

Althougheachorganisationhasindividualresponsibilities,atlocallevelthereisinteractionandassistanceprovidedbetweenPSNIofficers,CouncilAnimalWelfareOfficers(AWOs)andDARDVeterinaryService(DARDVS)inspectors.Animalwelfarecasescanrequiretheinvolvementofmorethanoneenforcementbody,forexampleinaninvestigationinvolvingbothfarmedandnon-farmedanimals,orincasesthatinvolvecriminalactivities.Successfulprogressofacasefrominitialreferral,throughinvestigation,potentiallytoprosecutionrequireseffectiveworkingbothwithinandbetweentheseagencies.

TheReviewthereforeexaminedhowthethreeenforcementbodiesworktogethertoimplementthe2011Act;howtheyworkwiththeirlegalteamsorthePublicProsecutionService(PPS),andtheNorthernIrelandCourtsandTribunalService(NICTS);andhowCouncilsworkwithanimalcharities.

6.2 Some stakeholders felt that the enforcement bodies do not work well together; others expressed concerns that the enforcement bodies do not fully understand what is required of them and that communication between them needs to be improved.

Itisimportantthattherolesandresponsibilitiesofeachenforcementbodyareclearlyunderstoodbystafftoavoidconfusionandensureanimalwelfarecasesarefullyinvestigated.TheReviewexaminedhowthethreeenforcementbodiesworkedandcommunicatedwitheachother.

TheReviewfoundthattherolesandresponsibilitiesofCouncilsandDARDinrespectofnon-farmedanimalsaresetoutinMemorandaofUnderstanding(MOUs)betweentheCouncilRegionsresponsibleforenforcementofthe2011ActandDARD.TheMOUsestablishaframework;

• clarifyingtheapproachtoenforcementofthe2011Act;

• settingoutthefundingarrangements;and

Page58


• clarifyingtherolesandresponsibilitiesofCouncilsinenforcingthe2011Act.

Theserelate,however,primarilytorelationshipsandinterfacesbetweenCouncilsandDARDonmattersofpolicythroughtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardanddonottouchontheoperationalrelationshipbetweenDARDandCouncils.

AseparateMOUhasnowbeenagreedinprinciplebetweentheCouncils,DARDandthePSNIwhich:

• establishesanagreedframeworkbetweenDARD,theleadco-ordinatingCouncilRegionandthePSNI,regardingenforcementofthe2011Act;

• clarifiesthegeneralrolesandresponsibilitiesofeachenforcementbody;

• setsoutingeneraltermsthespecifictypesofanimalthateachenforcementbodyhasresponsibilityforunderthe2011Act;and

• setsoutthereview,disputeandterminationarrangements.

TheReviewrecommendsthatallMOUsbereviewedinlightofthisworkandLocalGovernmentReform(LGR).

TheReviewfoundthatthethreeenforcementbodiesworktogetheroncaseswheremorethanonebodyhasarole,andestablishwhichbodyshouldtaketheleadininvestigatingthecase.EnforcementbodiesgenerallyareawareoftheirrolesandresponsibilitiesbuttheReviewestablishedthatthismaynotbethecaseatalllevelswithinanorganisation.ThisissuewashighlightedbysomeconsulteeswhosupporttherecommendationtoreviewMOUstoensurethereisaclearerunderstandingofresponsibilities.

TheReviewrecommendsthatprotocolsshouldbeestablishedforenforcementbodiesworkingtogetherinsituationswheretheleadrolemaynotbeclear,forexampleacaseinvolvingbothfarmedandnon-farmedanimals,andthatstaffshouldbemadeawareofthese.

IntheInterimReport,theReviewrecommendedthatthethreeenforcementbodiesshouldestablishameansofsharingbestpracticeandlessonslearnedfromspecificinvestigationsorprosecutions,particularlythosethatinvolvetwoormoreenforcementbodies,andthatNICTSshouldbeinvitedwhenrequired.Consulteeswereinsupportofthisrecommendation,withtheviewthatenforcementbodiesworkingmoreclosely,mayhelptoreduceinstancesofanimalwelfarebreaches“fallingthroughthecracks”.Thisrecommendationis,therefore,carriedforwardtotheFinalReport.

Specificrecommendationshavealsobeenmadeinothersectionsofthisreporttoenhancecommunicationandrelationshipsacrossthethreeenforcementbodiesinrespectoftrainingstaffandupdatingguidance(Section3referstoDARDVeterinaryService,Section4referstoCouncilsandSection5referstoPSNI).

Page59


6.3 Stakeholders raised concerns about the length of time some animals are kept in care pending a Disposal Order. This was also an issue for the enforcement bodies who pay for the care and collection costs in such cases

TheReviewconsideredhowthethreeenforcementbodiesworkwiththeirrespectivelegalteamsorthePPS,andtheNICTS,toensuretimelyprogressionofprosecutioncases.ItalsoconsideredissuesaroundtheobtainingofDisposalOrdersandthewordingandissuingofDisposal,DisqualificationandDeprivationOrders.

TheReviewfoundthateffectiveprogressionofDisposalOrderapplicationsisparticularlyimportantasitmaynotbeintheinterestsofanimalstoremainincareforaprolongedperiod.Inaddition,thecostsinvolvedinkeepinganimalsincarecansignificantlyimpactonenforcementbudgets.Itisalsoimportantthatprosecutionsareprogressedefficientlyinordertodeterfutureoffences.TheReviewalsonotedthat,astheprosecutormayseektorecovercostsfromtheowneroftheanimals,the2011Actrequiresacourttohaveregardtothedesirabilityofavoidingincreasinganyexpenseswhichapersonmaybeorderedtoreimburse.

TheReviewidentifiedanumberofcommonfactorswhichcausedelaysinsecuringDisposalOrders.Forexample,insomecasesDistrictJudges(magistrates’courts)wanttohearDisposalOrderapplicationsconcurrentlywiththeassociatedprosecutioncase;ownerswithnofixedabodeorthoseavoidingservicehavehinderedtheservingofcourtpapers;delayshavebeenexperiencedintheservingofsummonses;prosecutingauthoritieshave,onoccasion,notbeenawareofalternativesummonsesservicemethods;andlengthyadjournmentsincaseshaveoccurred.

InordertoavoiddelayinsecuringDisposalOrders,CouncilstaffpreparecasefileswithinsevenworkingdaysandforwardthemtotheirLegalServicesproviderforconsideration.SincetheInterimReport,CouncilshaveenteredintoaServiceLevelAgreementwiththeirLegalServiceprovidersothatcasescanprogressinamoretimelymanner.ThiswillallowCouncilstomonitorserviceprovisionmoreeffectively.

TheReviewrecognisesprogressionofapplicationsforDisposalOrdersisconstrainedbytheCourtsystemandtheavailabilityofdatesforhearings.

TherecommendationofthisreportfortheDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)towritetotheLordChiefJustice(LCJ)toprovidedetailonthechangestothemaximumpenalties,andprovideanoutlineoftheconcernsraisedbystakeholders,mayassistbyimprovingawarenessoftheimpactthatdelaysinsecuringdisposalordershaveonanimalsandbudgets.

TheReviewrecommendsthatawarenessoftheimpactonanimalwelfareandonbudgetsofdelaysinsecuringdisposalordersbeincludedaspartofactioninRecommendation3.

Inrelationtoserviceofsummonsesandnotificationsofdisposalorderapplications,theReviewrecognisedthattheserviceoptionsarecomplexandthatenforcementbodiesarefrustratedbythepracticeofmakingmultipleunsuccessfulattemptsatpersonalserviceasthiswasdelayingprosecutionsandapplicationsforDisposalOrders.

Page60


TheReviewfoundthattherearedifferentprocessesfortheserviceofsummonsessetoutintheMagistrates’CourtsRules(NI)1984,thisdependsuponwhethertheoffenceisbeingprosecutedbythePPSorbyanotherbody.PSNIandDARDcasesareprosecutedbythePPSandasummonsmaybeservedbyordinarypostor,ifnot,itmustbeservedonthedefendantinpersonbyaPSNIofficer.Asapracticalmeasure,aPPSsummonsmaybeservedbyasummonsserveronthedefendantinperson.CouncilcasesarenotprosecutedbythePPSandservicemustbebyasummonsserverorotherpersonpermittedtodosobytheDistrictJudge(magistrates’court),laymagistrateorclerkofpettysessions.ADistrictJudgeorclerkofpettysessionscanallowservicebyregisteredpostorrecordeddelivery,andifreturnedundelivered,aDistrictJudgemay,onapplicationbythecomplainant,allowservicebyordinarypost.AWOscannotservesummonsesthemselves.

SincethepublicationoftheInterimReport,NICTShasintroducedaperformanceframeworkforsummonsserversandhaveappointedadditionalsummonsserverstocreatemorecapacity.Thismayassistinensuringsummonsesareservedinatimelyway.

TheReviewexploredvariousavenuestopotentiallyresolvetheissuesaroundsummonsesbeingservedsuccessfully.Theinformationinrelationtoalternativemethodsofservingasummonswillbeprovidedtotheenforcementbodiessothattheycanconsiderthemostappropriatemethodinindividualcases.However,theReviewrecognisesthatservingofsummonsesispartofthelegalprocessandtherearerulesaroundhowtheymustbeservedwhichmustbeadheredto.

TheReviewrecognisesthatenforcementbodiescouldbetterassistcourtsbyprovidingclearlywordeddrafttemplateswhenrequestingDisposalOrderstoavoidanyambiguityoromissionsandassistineffectiveenforcementoftheOrder.TheReviewthereforerecommendsthatthethreeenforcementbodiesdrafttemplatesforusewhenrequestingOrdersfromthecourtforagreementwiththePPSandtheCouncil’slegalservicesprovider.TheReviewbelievethatsubmittingadraftdetailedOrdermayassistacourtinmakinganOrderthatisclear,isinlinewiththetermsofthe2011Actandtakesaccountoflessonslearntincasestakenunderthe2011Act.

DuringtheReviewitwasnotedthatenforcementbodiesmustrequest,andpayfor,acertificateofOrderforeachcasetheybring,asthelegislationdidnotrequirecourtstoautomaticallyprovidethem.TheReviewispleasedtonotethatinordertoaddressthisissue,inJuly2015,NICTSamendedtheIntegratedCourtOperatingSystemDocumentServiceRegistertoensurethat,onthegrantofanOrderundertheprovisionsofthe2011Act,allcomplainantswillreceiveacopyoftheOrderwhichwillfacilitatemonitoring.

Page61


6.4 Stakeholders asked that consideration be given to providing enforcement bodies and re-homing organisations access to conviction and disqualification data

Conviction data – Enforcement Bodies

TheInterimReporthadnotedthateachofthethreeenforcementbodieshasarecordofthedetailsofthesentenceshandeddowntopersonssuccessfullyconvictedasaresultofcasestakenbythatbody.Thisisnotacentraldatabase,however,itdoesprovidetherelevantenforcementbodywiththeinformationrequiredtomonitorcompliance.EachoftheSections3,4and5(farmed,non-farmedandwildanimals)containsarecommendationtoformalisemonitoringarrangements,andinthecaseofPSNI,toenhancerecordingtoensurelocalofficersareawareofanyDisqualificationOrders.

InNorthernIreland,dataonconvictions(criminalrecords)isprovidedbytheCriminalRecordViewer(CRV),whichformspartofalargerinformationsharingsystemknownasCauseway.Causewaywasspecificallydesignedtofacilitatethesharingofinformation,includingcriminalrecords,betweenthemaincriminaljusticeorganisations,includingPSNI,PPS,NICTS,ForensicScienceNorthernIreland,NorthernIrelandPrisonServiceandProbationBoardNorthernIreland.

ItispossiblefororganisationsotherthanthemaincriminaljusticebodiestoaccessCRV;however,eachorganisationwishingtodosomustbeabletodemonstrateavalidandlegitimatebusinessneed.OtherusersoftheCausewaysystembeyondthemainNorthernIrelandcriminaljusticeorganisationsincludeothergovernmentbodiessuchasAccessNI(foremploymentchecks),theCompensationAgency(forcriminalinjuryanddamageclaims)andtheNorthernIrelandSocialServicesAgency(forbenefitfraudinvestigationpurposes).

BeforeanorganisationcanbeprovidedwithaccesstotheCausewaysystem,thereisarequirementtosignuptoadatasharingagreementinordertoensurethatthedatacontainedwithinthesystemissuitablyprotected.Accesstocriminalrecorddatawillonlybeprovidedonceastrictsetofcriteriahasbeenmetadheringtocontrolprocedures.ThecriteriaandprocedureswillincludeensuringthattheITsystemsusedforhandlingthedataarecapableofhandlinginformationtoarestrictedlevel;andthatstaffworkingwiththedatahavetheappropriatelevelofsecurityclearanceandtrainingtocovertheirdataprotectionresponsibilities.

OfthethreeenforcementbodiesPSNIalreadyhavefullaccesstoconvictiondatathroughCRV.

IntheInterimReporttheReviewrecognisedthatactionwasongoingtoprovideDARDVSwithmoredatainrelationtothoseconvictedofanimalwelfareoffencestofacilitatetheirenforcementrole.

SincetheInterimReportwaspublishedDARD’srequesttotheCausewayJointInformationManagementGroupwasapprovedandDARDhasrecentlyjoinedthelistoforganisationswhichhaveaccesstoCRV.Inadditiontoaccesstocriminalrecords,

Page62


DARD’saccesstoCRVfacilitatestheproductionofamonthlyreportprovidingdetailsofallliveconvictionsforanimalwelfareoffences.

TheInterimReportacknowledgedthatCouncils,intheirenforcementrole,wouldalsobenefitfromaccesstotheconvictiondataheldonCRVastheycurrentlydonothaveanyaccesstodatacollectedpriortotheimplementationofthe2011ActordatainrelationtoprosecutionsbroughtbyeitherDARDorPSNI.TheInterimReport,therefore,recommendedthatonceDARDhadbeenprovidedwithaccesstoCRVtheyshouldinvestigateoptionsforprovidingrelevantCouncilstaffwithaccesstosimilarinformationonconvictions.DARDinconjunctionwithDOJarecurrentlyexploringtheoptionsavailable.Thisrecommendationisthereforeretainedinthisreport.

Conviction data – Non statutory bodies

Duringthestakeholderdiscussionsessionssomere-homingorganisations,andotherswithaninterestinanimalwelfare,soughtaccesstoinformationonanimalwelfareconvictions.Theyadvisedthatthisinformationwouldassistintheirassessmentinrelationtothesuitabilityofpeoplewhenre-hominganimals.Somestakeholdersfeltthosewhohadbeenconvictedofananimalwelfareoffenceorbeendisqualifiedfromkeepinganimalsunderthe2011Act,shouldappearonacentrallist,astheseconvictionswerehandeddowninanopencourt.

Creationof,andaccessto,acentrallistwhichwouldbeavailabletonon-statutorybodiesengagesdifficultandcomplexissuesregardingFreedomofInformation,DataProtection,therehabilitationofoffenders,andprotectingcertainhumanrightsparticularlytheRighttoLifeandtheRighttoaFamilyLife.UndertheEuropeanConventiononHumanRights(ECHR)everyonehasageneralrighttoprivacy.However,theECHRalsostatesthat,providedthatitisinaccordancewithnationallawandis“necessaryinademocraticsociety”,publicauthoritiesmayinterferewiththerightsofanindividual.Tocreatesuchalistwouldthereforerequirethecasetobemadethatsuchalistisrequired;intheinterestsofnationalsecurity,publicsafetyortheeconomicwell-beingofthecountry;forthepreventionofdisorderorcrime;fortheprotectionofhealthormorals;orfortheprotectionoftherightsandfreedomsofothers.Whilesomemayarguethatsuchalistisneededforthepreventionofcrimethishastobeconsideredwithinthecontextthatthe2011Actplacesastatutoryobligationonthreeseparatebodies–DARD,CouncilsandPSNI–toenforcethelaw.

TheReviewspoketoalltheenforcementbodiesandfoundnoevidencetosuggestthatpeoplebannedfromkeepinganimalshadapproachedre-homingorganisationsforanimals.WhiletheReviewrecognisesthattheremaybepotentialbenefitsinprovidingthosenon-statutorybodiesinvolvedinthere-homingofanimalswithinformationonindividualswhoaredisqualifiedfromkeepinganimalstherewasnoprovencasefortheneedforsuchinformationtobeprovided.

TheReviewdid,however,goontolookatwhatoptionsmaybeavailableifaneedwasproven.TheReviewhastakenintoconsiderationthefindingsoftheInformationCommissionerwherehehasconsideredthatconvictionsarepronouncedincourtbefore

Page63


averylimitedaudienceand,astimepassesfromthedateofthecourt,thememoryofthosepresentdiminishes.ConsequentlytheCommissionerconsidersthatconvictionshandeddownincourtarenot“publicrecords”orinformation“withinthepublicdomain”butratheraresensitivepersonaldataforthepurposesofbroaderdisclosure.

TheReviewfoundasignificantnumberofissuesinrelationtoprovisionofsuchsensitivepersonaldata.TheseissuesrelatemainlytoDataProtectionandhowaccesstosuchinformation,whichiscurrentlyonlyavailabletocertainstatutorybodiesoperatingwithinthecriminaljusticesystem,wouldbemanaged.Therewerealsoconcernsoverhoweffectiveacentralregisterwouldbeinpracticeinhelpingtodetectdisqualifiedindividuals,forexample,asaregisterwouldcontaininformationcurrentatthetimeofconvictionbutnotupdatedaspersonalinformationchangedovertime.Itwasfeltthatthoseintendingtobreachadisqualificationorderwereunlikelytoapplytoare-homingorganisationforananimalbutwouldmorelikelyseekalternativeopportunitieswithlessscrutiny.

Onbalance,andtakingintoaccountallthefactorsconsidered,theReviewisnotrecommendingthataregisterofthosedisqualifiedfromkeepinganimalsbeestablished.

TheReviewinvestigatedalternativeoptionsforprovidingconvictiondatatore-homingorganisationsand,whileitwasfoundthatincertaincircumstancesitwouldbepossibletosharesuchinformation,itwasalsofoundthatputtingthenecessaryarrangementsinplacetofacilitatethiswouldputconsiderablestrainontheexistingresourcesofenforcementbodiesorrequireaconsiderablefinancialchargetore-homingorganisationstosupporttheservice.ThiswouldbeinadditiontotheassociatedcostsfororganisationsinupgradingtheirITsystem,enteringdatasharingarrangementsandputtinginplaceprocedurestoensureinformationiskeptsecureandusedonlyfortheintendedpurposes.TheReviewthereforeconcludedthatabetteroptionistocontinuetofocusresourcesonfrontlineenforcementduties.InreachingthisconclusiontheReviewconsideredresponsestoanonlinesurveyitcommissionedaimedatgainingabetterunderstandingofhowre-homingorganisationsconducttheirroles.Thesurveyresultsindicatedthatthemajorityofre-homingorganisationswhorespondedusearangeofdifferentmeasurestoprovideassuranceregardingthesuitabilityofthosetowhomananimalisre-homed.Someofthemeasuresincludehomevisits,seekingreferencesonaperson’sfitnesstocareforanimalsandprovidingtraining/informationonhowtheanimaltobere-homedshouldbelookedafter.

WhiletheReviewidentifiedanumberofcommongoodpracticesamongstre-homingorganisationsthereweresomeareaswherepracticesdiffered.TheReviewthereforefeltthatre-homingarrangementsmightbestrengthenedifDARD,inconjunctionwithDOJ,whereappropriate,workwithre-homingorganisationstosharebestpracticeacrossthesector.TheReviewrecommendsthatDARD,withDOJsupport,arrangeaneventbringinganimalre-homingorganisationstogethertosharebestpracticeanddiscussstepsthatcanbetakentoensurethesuitabilityofindividualsapplyingtore-homeananimal.

TheReviewalsoconsideredmorebroadlytheissueofenforcementofDisqualificationOrdersandconsideredarangeofoptionswhichsoughttoaddressconcernsregarding

Page64


disqualifiedindividualswhomightattempttore-homeananimal.TheInterimReportnotedthatindividualswhoaredisqualifiedaremonitoredbytherelevantenforcementbodyandtheReviewmakesrecommendationstoformaliseandstrengthenthemonitoringarrangementscurrentlyinplace(seesections3,4,and5).Itshouldbenotedthatthe2011ActmadeitacriminaloffenceforanindividualtobreachthetermsofaDisqualificationOrder.Undertheproposaltoincreasethemaximumsentencesavailable(Recommendation1)thisoffence,whichiscurrentlyasummaryonlyoffencewillbecomeahybridoffenceandwillthereforecarryamaximumpenaltyoffiveyearsimprisonmentand/oruptoanunlimitedfineforthemostseriouscases.TheReviewbelievesthismeasurewillactasasignificantdeterrenttothoseconsideringbreachingaDisqualificationOrder.

6.5 The Review considered how Councils presently work with animal welfare organisations such as charities and rescue groups and looked to identify ways they could work better together in the future

Enforcementbodiesmayfromtimetotimeworkwithanimalwelfareorganisations.Thisisprincipallyanissuefornon-farmedanimals,includingequines,andtheReviewconsiderationofthisissue,therefore,focussedonCouncils.

Duringthestakeholderdiscussionsessions,concernswereraisedthatCouncilsdidnotcheckwithanimalwelfareorganisationsforre-homingpoliciesbeforetransferringanimalstothemforre-homingandthatCouncilsdidnotcarryoutahomecheckonanimalsre-homeddirectlyfromtheircaretoascertainifthepotentialnewownerissuitable.

TheReviewfoundthatCouncilsdonotofferanimalstakenintopossessionunderthe2011Actdirectlytomembersofthepublic.However,theydoofferanimalswhenavailabletodosotothirdpartyorganisationsforre-homing.Councilscontactanimalwelfareorganisationstore-homeanimalsthathavebeentakenintopossessionthroughseizureorvoluntarysurrenderandtheseorganisationsoftenre-homeanimalswithmembersofthepublic.Animalwelfareorganisationseachoperatetheirownre-homingpolicieswhichmayincludeassessmentofpotentialowners,forexamplethroughhomevisits.

TheReviewfoundthatCouncilsmaintainalistofre-homingorganisationsbutdonothaveaformalprocedureforassessingthequalityoftheserviceprovidedbytheseorganisations.Asthe2011Actprovidespowerstomakesubordinatelegislationtoregulateanyactivityinvolvinganimalsinordertopromotetheirwelfare,theReviewrecommendsthatDARDshouldconsiderlicensingofanimalsanctuaries,re-homingorganisationsanddogpoundstoensurethatanimalwelfarestandardsaresetfortheseorganisations.

Whilstconsulteesweregenerallyinsupportofthisrecommendationtherewasconcernaroundanyfeesthatmaybeinvolved,particularlyforsmallerorganisations.TheeffectofanylicensingfeewillneedtobecarefullyconsideredbyDARDasitdevelopspolicyinthisarea.ThislegislationmayofferanopportunityforCouncilstostrengthenpoliciesaroundthere-homingofseizedanimalstoprovidereassurancethatpracticesareofasufficientlyhighstandard.

Page65


Onthatbasis,followingtheInterimReporttheReviewrecommendsthatCouncilscontinuetoworkwithorganisationsthatareinapositiontotakeanimalsforre-homing,pendingconsiderationofalicensingsystem.

TheReviewfoundthatwelfarecharitiesfrequentlyreceivereportsofanimalwelfareconcernsfrommembersofthepublic.Itiscustomaryforsuchorganisationstoseekfurtherinformation,oftenwithaviewtoreferringthematterforofficialinvestigation,andeventovisitpremisestoestablishthebasisforsuchconcerns.FromApril2012toSeptember2014,around6%ofwelfarereportstoCouncilswerefromwelfarecharities.Itisnotuncommonforinformationinrelationtowelfareconcerns,andinrelationtoongoingofficialinvestigations,tobediscussedbythirdpartieswiththemediaandonsocialmedia.

Inrelationtothirdpartyinvolvementininvestigations,theReviewacknowledgesthatanimalwelfareorganisations,andindeedconcernedmembersofthepublic,haveaveryimportantroletoplayinensuringthatconcernsinrelationtothewelfareofparticularanimalsarereportedandofficialinvestigationsareinitiatedwhennecessary.However,thereispotentialforcertainriskstoariseshouldthirdpartiesbecomedirectlyinvolvedininvestigatorywork,suchasinadvertentlyalertingoffendersofthepotentialforofficialinvestigationwhichmayleadtoconsequentlossofevidence.Thereisalsoariskthataprosecutioncouldbeunderminedthroughinformationinrelationtoacasebeingreleasedintothepublicdomainforexampleviasocialmediaandthisclearlyhasthepotentialtohaveadetrimentaleffectonenforcementofthe2011Act.

TheReviewrecommendsthattheenforcementbodiesshouldmakeguidanceavailableonhowthepublicandanimalwelfareorganisationsshoulddealwithananimalwelfareincident.Thiscouldcomplementexistingguidanceonhowtocontacttheappropriateenforcementbodies.Thisrecommendationwaswelcomedbyallrespondentswhocommentedduringconsultation.

IntheInterimReporttheReviewrecommendedthatCouncilsshouldbuildonpreviousengagementwithanimalwelfarerepresentativegroupsfromthevoluntaryandcharitablesector,throughannualmeetingstodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actregardingnon-farmedanimals.TheReviewenvisagesthistakingtheformofstakeholderengagementseminarsinvolvingawiderangeofwelfareorganisations.Consulteesrespondedpositivelytothissuggestion,whilstacknowledgingthegoodworkingpracticewhereitalreadyexistsbetweenCouncilsandwelfareorganisations.Thisrecommendationis,therefore,carriedforwardtothisReport.

6.6 Some stakeholders felt that cross border arrangements need to improve

TheReviewfoundthatonoccasionsanimalwelfarecasesarisewhichhaveacrossborderelement;however,suchcasesarerare.

TheReviewestablishedthatinthecaseoffarmedanimals,DARD’sVeterinaryServiceEnforcementBranch(VSEB)hasdevelopedlinkswiththeSpecialInvestigationUnit(SIU)withintheDepartmentofAgriculture,FoodandtheMarine(DAFM),thePSNI,AnGarda

Page66


Síochána,HMRevenueandCustomsandRevenueCommissionersintheRepublicofIreland.Theselinkages,builtupduringtrade,animalidentificationandanimaldiseaseinvestigations,canbereadilycalledupontodealwithoccurrencesofanimalwelfarewithacrossborderdimension.WorkhasalsocommencedonadatasharingagreementbetweenVSEBandtheDAFMSIU.

TheReviewalsofoundthatthePSNIhaveinformationsharingprotocolsinplacewithAnGardaSíochánaandotherUKpoliceservices.TheyhavealsoestablishedlocalcontactlinkswithintheborderstationsandwiththePSNIWLO.

TheReviewfoundthatCouncilshavedealtwithaverysmallnumberofcaseswheretheinvolvementoftheircounterpartsintheRepublicofIrelandhasbeenrequired.Wherenon-farmedanimalcaseshavearisencolleaguesfrombothjurisdictionshadmettodiscussspecificcasesandhaveestablishedcontactdetails.TheReviewnotesthatitisimportantthatCouncilsareabletocontactkeypersonnelintheRepublicofIrelandwhenaninvestigationrevealsacrossborderdimension.Respondentstothisissueintheconsultationagreedwiththisapproach.

Therefore,theReviewrecommendsthatCouncilscontinuetomaintainalistofkeycontactsintheRepublicofIrelandandmeetcounterpartsonanannualbasis,ormorefrequentlyifrequired,todiscussanimalwelfareissues.

6.7 Stakeholders asked for clarity in relation to responsibility for enforcing Section 14 of the 2011 Act (abandonment).

Section14ofthe2011Actmakesitanoffencetoabandonananimalirrespectiveofwhetherornottheanimalsuffers.

DARDenforcesSection14ofthe2011ActinrelationtofarmedanimalsandCouncilsenforcethissectioninrelationtonon-farmedanimals.BothDARDandCouncilscantakeenforcementactionagainstpersonsknowntohaveabandonedananimal.InthecaseofanimalsabandonedorwanderingonroadsitistheresponsibilityofthePoliceServiceofNorthernIreland(PSNI)undertheAnimals(NI)Order1976andtheRoads(NI)Order1993.ThisisconsideredfurtherinSection9.3withregardtoabandonedequines.

Whereappropriate,PSNI,CouncilandDARDstaffworktogetheronanimalwelfarecasesandthisjoinedupapproachhasproventoworkwelltodate.

Theseissueswillalsobeaddressedthroughthemeasuresbeingtakentomakethepublicawareofeachoftheenforcementbodies’responsibilities(Section7).

Page67


6.8 Stakeholders asked for clarity in relation to protection for feral cats under the 2011 Act.

Catsarenon-farmedanimalsunderthe2011ActanditisforCouncilstodetermineinwhatcircumstancesthepowersintheActcanorshouldbeused.Thisincludesconsideringwhetherferalcatsfallwithinthedefinitionof“protectedanimal”andsobenefitfromprotectionunderthe2011Act.ThisisimportantasCouncilAWOscanonlyexercisetheirpowers,forexampletotakeananimalintopossession,iftheanimalisaprotectedanimalundertheAct.

AnanimallivinginawildstateandnotunderthecontrolofmanisonlyprotectedundertheActifitisofa“kind”whichiscommonlydomesticatedinNorthernIreland.Althoughcatsarecertainlyofa“species”thatiscommonlydomesticatedhere,Councilshaveconsideredwhetherferalcatsareofakindthatfallswithinthiscategory.

TheAssociationofDogsandCatsHomes(ADCH)3haspublishedaCodeofPracticewhichsetsanagreedminimumlevelofcaretobeaffordedtodogsandcatskeptbyanimalrescueorganisations.Itsetsouttheapproachthatrescuesshouldtakeinrelationtoferalcats.Itsaysthat–

“Some organisations will accept feral cats but neither re-homing nor long term care is appropriate for these cats. Feral cats are wild animals and therefore there should be no attempt to socialise or tame them. Adult feral cats must not be kept in confinement any longer than necessary.”

Italsocommentsthat–

“True feral cats (as opposed to strays) are highly unlikely to ever become socialised to humans and being kept in an enclosed shelter environment is likely to cause significant distress and it will be difficult or impossible to meet the animals’ welfare needs.

Feral cats must not be kept captive except for veterinary treatment. Only one off treatments are appropriate and long term treatment and confinement are not. Therefore, for chronic conditions, euthanasia might need to be considered.”

Giventhedistinctionbetweenferalcatsanddomesticcats(evenwhenthosedomesticcatshavestrayed)intermsofthebehaviouraldifferencesbetweenthemandthedifferencesintreatmentthatitisappropriateforthem,Councilshaveconcludedthatferal

3ADCH was formed in 1985 to unite Dog and Cat Welfare Organisations in matters of concern and importance to stray, injured and unwanted dogs and cats. Membership includes charities or not for profit organisations of all sizes situated throughout England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The Association acts as a platform for identifying and disseminating information on best practice and for raising the standards of animal welfare. Further details are available at www.adch.org.uk. The code of practice is available at www.adch.org.uk/downloads/ADCHCOP15.pdf.

Page68


catsareofakindthatisnotcommonlydomesticated.Thismeansthatferalcatsarenotconsideredtobeprotectedanimalsunderthe2011ActandAWOswillnottakethemintopossessioniftheirwelfareappearstobecompromised.TheReviewiscontentthatthisisappropriatebecauseitwouldnotbeinaferalcat’sbestinterestsforaCounciltotakeitintopossessiongiventhatinmanycasesthefutureofthecatcouldnotbesecuredwithoutaDisposalOrderandthattheprocessofsecuringaDisposalOrdercantakemanyweeks.

Ifacatislivinginawildstateandisofakindthatiscommonlydomesticated,forexample,apetcatthathasstrayed,itdoesfallwithinthedefinitionofaprotectedanimalunderthe2011ActandCouncilAWOswillexercisetheirpowersinrelationtoanimalsindistresswhenappropriate.

TheReviewrecommendsthatCouncilsworkwithcatwelfareorganisationstoproduceguidanceforusebyAWOsindeterminingwhencatsareofaferalkind.WhereCouncilsareunabletotakeactionunderthe2011Actinindividualcasesinvolvingferalcatstheyshouldconsiderpassinginformationabouttheanimalstorelevantwelfareorganisations.

ThePSNIshouldbecontactedandprovidedwithallrelevantevidenceifacatissuspectedtohavebeensubjecttoacrimerelatingtoanimalfighting.Thisapplieswhetherthecatisofaferalkindoradomestickind.IfcatshavegonemissinginanareatheyshouldbereportedtoPSNIasmissing(lostproperty),butifyouhavereasontobelievethatacathasbeenstolenthisshouldbereportedassuch.FurtherinformationontheroleofthePSNIissetoutinSection5ofthisreport.

Page69


Recommendations:

Recommendation 23:ThedraftMOUbetweenthethreeenforcementbodiesandthecurrentMOUsbetweenDARDandCouncilsbeupdatedtoreflecttheoutcomeofthisReviewandthenewstructuresadoptedbyCouncilsfollowingLGR.

Recommendation 24:Thethreeenforcementbodiesestablishprotocolsforworkingtogetherincertainsituationsi.e.abandonedhorsesandmissingpets.

Recommendation 25:Thethreeenforcementbodiesmeetregularlytodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actandtosharebestpracticeandlessonslearnedfromspecificinvestigations,NICTSshouldbeinvitedwhenrequired.

Recommendation 26: ThethreeenforcementbodiesdeveloptemplatesforDisposal,DeprivationandDisqualificationOrdersforusebyprosecutors.

Recommendation 27:DARD,inconjunctionwithDOJ,progressitsapplicationforaccesstotheCRVandinvestigateoptionsregardingsharingrelevantconvictiondatawithCouncils.

Recommendation 28:DARD,withDOJsupport,arrangeaneventbringinganimalre-homingorganisationstogethertosharebestpracticeanddiscussstepsthatcanbetakentoensurethesuitabilityofindividualsapplyingtore-homeananimal.

Recommendation 29:Councilscontinuetoworkwithorganisationsthatareinapositiontotakeownershipofanimalswhichmaybere-homedasaresultofDisposalOrdersgrantedbytheCourtspendingconsiderationofalicensingsystemforsuchorganisations.

Recommendation 30:DARDconsiderslicensingofanimalsanctuaries,re-homingorganisationsanddogpounds.

Recommendation 31:EnforcementBodiesmakeguidanceavailableonhowthepublicandanimalwelfareorganisationsshoulddealwithananimalwelfareincident.

Recommendation 32:Councilstomeetannuallywithkeyanimalwelfarerepresentativegroupstodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actregardingnon-farmedanimals.

Recommendation 33:CouncilsmeetwiththeircounterpartsintheRepublicofIrelandonanannualbasisormorefrequentlyifrequired,todiscussissuesofjointinterest.

Recommendation 34:CouncilsworkwithcatwelfareorganisationstoproduceguidanceforusebyAWOsindeterminingwhencatsareofaferalkind.

Page70




Section 7Serving the Public

Page71


Serving the Public7.1 Background

TheReviewrecognisestheneedforthepublicandstakeholderstohaveconfidenceintheanimalwelfareserviceprovidedbyeachoftheenforcementbodies.

TheReviewconsideredwhethercommunicationiscurrentlysufficienttoensurethatmembersofthepublicandotherstakeholdersareawareofthearrangementsinplacetoimplementtheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act)andthatsufficientinformationispubliclyavailabletoprovidetransparencyinrelationtoservicedelivery.

TheReviewrecognisesthatthepublic,stakeholdersandthosewhohavearesponsibilityforanimalsshouldhaveaclearunderstandingoftheneedsofananimal,theobligationsonthosewithresponsibilityforananimal,andunderstandwhichenforcementbodytocontactaboutananimalwelfareconcern.

7.2 Stakeholders expressed concerns about the extent to which the public has been made aware of the enforcement arrangements and who to contact, if they have an animal welfare concern.

InMarch2014,twoyearsafterthe2011Actbecameoperational,theUlsterSocietyPreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(USPCA)commissionedMarketResearchNorthernIreland(MRNI)tocarryoutapublicawarenesssurveytoquantifythepublicunderstandingoftheinvestigationandenforcementresponsibilitiesinplaceforcurrentanimalwelfarelegislation.TheyhavemadethisinformationavailabletotheReview.Thesurveywasconductedusingarepresentativesampleof600adultsacrossNorthernIrelandandwasundertakenbetween14Marchand24March2014.Thissurveyfoundthatonly6%ofthosequestionedwereawareofchangestotheanimalwelfarelegislationandlessthanhalfwereawarethatCouncils,DARDorthePSNIshouldbecontactedtoreportanimalwelfareconcerns.

TheReviewexaminedthematerialavailabletothepublictocommunicatetheanimalwelfareenforcementarrangements,itsprominenceandcontent.ItfoundthatanimalwelfarecontactsforDARD,CouncilsandthePSNIarepublishedontheDARDwebsite.DARDalsopublishedaseriesofspeciesspecificCodesofPractice(CoP)onanimalwelfareforfarmedanimalsandnon-farmedanimalstopromotepublicawarenessoflegalresponsibilitiesunderthe2011Act.LinkstotheCoParealsoavailableontheNIDirectwebsite.TheReviewfoundthatwhileDARDtooknumerousstepstopublicisetheseCoPinrelationtofarmedanimals,DARDandCouncilstooklimitedstepstopromotetheCoPinrelationtonon-farmedanimals.TheReviewnotesthatCoParenotavailableonmostCouncilwebsites.

ContactdetailsfortheCouncil’sanimalwelfareservicewereavailableonmostofthepreviousCouncilwebsites.However,somewerenoteasytofindastheywereundertheEnvironmentalHealthServicesection.TheReviewnotedthattherecommendations

Page72


topromotetheanimalwelfareserviceandthenewanimalwelfarewebpresence(seerecommendation35)shouldhelptoaddressthisissue.TheCouncilsalsoheldasmallnumberofstakeholdereventsbeforeandaftertheimplementationofthe2011Act.InJune2013Councils’producedleafletsexplainingtheanimalwelfareservice,whichwerepublishedonCouncilwebsitesanddistributedthroughtheirpremises,DARDDirectOfficesandPrivateVeterinaryPractices.TheReviewispleasedtonotethatCouncilshaveupdatedleafletsandcirculatedtherevisionwithamapshowingtheregions,toallAnimalWelfareGroupsinOctober2015,aswellasupdatingtheinformationontheCouncilwebsites.

ThePSNIprovidesinformationabouttheirroleininvestigatinganimalwelfareandwildlifecrimeonitswebsiteandthroughpublicawarenessleaflets,whichfocusonparticularareasofconcern,e.g.badgerbaiting,deerpoaching.Thesearedistributedatalocallevel,forexample,atcommunitymeetingsinresponsetospecificconcerns.

TheReviewalsolookedatinformationavailablefromothersourcesandfoundexamplesthatareclearandinformative,forexample,theUSPCAandEquineCouncilforNorthernIrelandwebsites,whichprovidethesamecontactdetailsforreportinganimalwelfareconcerns.Thismaybeatemplatethatcouldbeconsideredfortheproposedanimalwelfarewebpresence.

TheReviewlookedatthenumberofcallsmadetothePSNIregardinganimalwelfareandthenumberofcallsmadetotheCouncilanimalwelfareservice.Tables7and8showtheincreasingnumberofcallstoCouncils,andthedecreasingnumberofanimalwelfarerelatedcallstothePSNI.ThissuggeststhatthepublicarebecomingmoreawareoftheroleofCouncils.TheReviewestablishedthatasmallpercentage(6%)ofthesecallscametoCouncilsviaanimalwelfareorganisations,withthemajorityofcallscomingfromthepublic.

Table 7: Number of animal welfare related calls to PSNI

Year Animal Welfare Related Calls

2011 2,169

2012 1,603

2013 1,245

2014 821

2015(Jan-Aug) 853

Page73


Table 8: Number of calls to the Council Animal Welfare Service4

Year Animal Welfare Service Calls

2011 0

2012-13 5,165

2013-14 5,786

2014-15 5,827

2015-16* 3,067

*Figuresfortheperiod1April2015to30September2015.

TheReviewconsidersthatenforcementbodiesshouldtakefurtherstepstoensurethatthepublicareawareofeachoftheirrolesandcontactdetails,andthataconsistentmessageisprovidedtominimiseconfusionandensurethatwelfarecasescanbeinvestigatedquickly.Respondentswhocommentedonthisissueduringtheconsultationsupportedthisapproach.

FollowingtheInterimReporttheReviewfurtherconsideredwhatmeasurescouldbetakentoaddresstheseissues,including:

• Thecreationofasingleanimalwelfarewebpresence,managedbyDARD,bringingtogetherinformationfromallthreeenforcementbodies.Thiswouldincludecontactdetailsforeachoftheenforcementbodiesandanexplanationoftheirrolecombinedwithlinkstodocumentsontheenforcementbodies’websites,suchastheproposedAnnualReport,CoP,FrequentlyAskedQuestions,andcopiesofpressreleases.HostingthiswebpresenceontheNIDirectwebsitewouldcapitaliseonthecurrenthighusageoftheNIDirectwebsiteandavoiddivertingfromwelfareinvestigationtheresourceneededtocreateanewwebsite;

• Thedevelopmentofaseriesofshortspecies-specificleafletstocomplementtheexistingCoP,explainingtheresponsibilitiesofownersandhowtoreportananimalwelfareconcern;

• Enhancingsourcesofinformationonanimalwelfare,suchasguidanceandleaflets,andthepublicisingoftheCoPfornon-farmedanimals;and

• Anawarenesscampaigntoensurethatthepublicisawareofwhotocontactiftheyareconcernedaboutthewelfareofanimals.

4Council staff log all calls received on the animal welfare IT system, however, a high number of additional calls are received that do not relate to specific animal welfare cases and are not included in the table. The number of calls does not equate to the number of cases as more than one call may be received for the same case. Councils took enforcement responsibility for non-farmed animals under the 2011 Act in April 2012.

Page74


TheReviewispleasedtonotethatsincethepublicationoftheInterimReportDARDhaveliaisedwithNIDirectandtakenstepstowardsthecreationofthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Organisationswhocommentedduringconsultationlargelyagreedthatimplementationofthesemeasurescouldhelpresolveconfusionaroundwhotocontactregardinganimalwelfarecases.

7.3 Stakeholders expressed concern that on some occasions evidence that might indicate a serious animal welfare offence, such as dog fighting, was not being followed up appropriately by the enforcement bodies

TheReviewfoundthatenforcementbodieshaveprocessesinplacetoensurethatanyinformationtheyreceiveisdealtwithappropriately.Italsoacceptsthevalidityofanecdotalevidencereceivedfromthepublicinrelationtoproblemsexperiencedinindividualcases.WhiletheReviewrecognisedthattheparticularcircumstancesinaspecificcasemayimpactondecisionsonfollowupactionbyanenforcementbody,itcouldnotruleoutthatinsomecasestheprocessesinplacewerenotbeingoperatedeffectively.

TheReviewalsonotedthatoccasionallyissuesappeartoariseincasesthatmayindicateacrimebutforwhichnoevidenceisavailable,makinginvestigationofsuchcasesdifficult,forexample,reportsofmissinganimals.

TheReviewconcludedthatthepublicshouldbeencouragedtoreportsuspicionsofillegalactivityevenifsuchevidenceisnotsufficientonitsowntoestablishthatanoffencehastakenplace.TakentogetherwithevidencealreadyknowntoDARD,CouncilsorPSNI(particularlyatalocallevel)thiscouldassistinestablishingpatternsandallowfurtherinvestigationifnecessary.Theenforcementbodiesrelyonsuchreportsfrommembersofthepublic,withoutwhich,enforcementofthe2011Actwouldbemoredifficult.

TheReviewrecommendsthatenforcementbodiesshouldconsiderhowinformationfromthepublicisgathered,analysedandactedupontoseeifanyimprovementsarepossible.Inaddition,theestablishmentofprotocolsforworkingtogetherincertainsituations(asrecommendedinSection6)shouldhelpensureestablishedprocessesarefollowedandcasesdealtwithinanappropriateway.

Allrespondentswhocommentedonthisrecommendationduringconsultationwereinsupport.

7.4 Stakeholders suggested one animal welfare contact telephone number to receive calls, which would then be passed to the relevant enforcement body to deal with and a 24 hour call facility to receive out-of-hours calls.

TheReviewestablishedthatcurrently;

• DARDprovidesonetelephonenumberfor“AnimalHealthandWelfareandVeterinary

Page75


PublicHealth”andcallsarethenreferredtotherelevantDARDDirectoffices.InadditionthereisalsoadedicatedDARDHelplinenumber;

• thePSNIprovideasinglecontacttelephonenumber(101)fornon-emergencycallswhichhasbeenwellpublicisedaswellas999foremergencycalls;and

• Councilshavefivecontacttelephonenumbersfortheanimalwelfareservice,oneforeachoftheareasthatmanagetheservice.Theyalsohaveasinglenumberforanemergencyout-of-hoursservice,whichisprovidedontheansweringservicemessageoutsidenormalofficehours.

TheReviewconsideredwhetherasingletelephonenumberforallthreeenforcementbodiescouldbeprovidedtomakeiteasierforthepublicwhenmakinganinitialcontacttoreportananimalwelfareconcern.ThistelephonysystemcouldpotentiallybeoperatedbyNIDirectandtheyhaveindicatedtheycouldoffertwotypesofservice:

Option 1 –CallsareansweredbyaNIDirectoperator,whoworksfromaseriesofquestionsintheformofascript,andsubsequentlydirectsthecallstotheappropriateenforcementbody;or

Option 2 –CallsaredirectedtoanInteractiveVoiceResponse(IVR)systemwherethecallerwouldinitiallybegiventhreeoptions,i.e.press1,farmedanimals,press2,non-farmedanimalsandpress3,wildanimals,thesystemthenautomaticallydirectsthecalltotheappropriateenforcementbody.Furtherselectionoptionsmayhavetobebuiltintothetelephonysystemateachstagetoensurecallsaredirectedtothecorrectlocation,i.e.press1forEasternarea,press2forNorthernareaetc.

Inthecaseofoption1,thecallerwouldberequiredtorepeatinformationoncetheywereconnectedwiththeappropriateenforcementbody.Thiswasconsideredtobeadisadvantage.Inthecaseofoption2,theReviewfeltthattheIVRsystemwithseveraloptionscouldbeconfusingandfrustratingforcallers.Thereforehavingconsideredtheoptionsavailable,theReviewisnotconvincedthateitheroftheseoptionswouldfacilitateanimprovedserviceforthepublic.TheReviewconcludedthatthecurrentsystemwherebyeachenforcementbodyoperatesitsowndirectcontactarrangements,withbetterpublicity,isthebestoption.

TheReviewthenconsideredwhethertheCouncil’sanimalwelfareserviceshoulditselfcontinuetooperateatelephonenumberforeachRegionorreducethistoonenumber.Itfoundthatatpresent,ifacallhandlerreceivesacallfromamemberofthepublicwhichrelatestoacaseinanotherregion,thecallhandlerwilltakeallrelevantinformationaboutthecasefromthecallerinthenormalwayandtransferthatinformationtotheAnimalWelfareOfficer(AWO)intheappropriatearea.Thememberofthepublicisnotrequiredtophoneorspeaktoacallhandlerinthecorrectregion.

TheReviewrecognisedthepotentialbenefittomembersofthepublicofhavingonlyonecontactnumberfortheCouncil’sanimalwelfareservice.Forexample,amemberofthepublicwouldnothavetoknowwhichregiontheanimalisin,andasinglenumberwouldbeeasierforCouncilstopubliciseandformembersofthepublictoremember.However,theReviewfoundthatthereisasignificantadvantageinoperatingfivenumbers.

Page76


Thatisbecausemembersofthepublicareabletodiscusseachpotentialwelfarecasewithlocalstaffwhoarefamiliarwiththelocalarea,andthislocalknowledgehelpstheservicetoinvestigateandresolvecasesinamoretimelyway.TheReviewalsorecognisedthatifamemberofthepublicphonesthewrongregion’snumberheorsheshouldnotbeinconveniencedgiventheexistingsystemoftransferringcaseinformationdiscussedabove.TheReviewthereforeconcludedthatCouncilsshouldcontinuewiththecurrentcontactarrangements,butthattheseshouldbepublicisedmoreeffectivelyasrecommendedinothersectionsofthisreport.

TheReviewalsoconsideredthefeasibilityofproviding24hourcontactandresponsefacilitiesforeachofthethreeenforcementbodies.Thecurrentarrangementsareasfollows:

• DARDprovidesahelplinee-mailandvoicemailservice24hoursaday,sevendaysaweek(24/7).Voicemailmessagesleftande-mailsreceivedoutsideofthehoursof9amto5pmarerespondedtothefollowingworkingday.TheDARDwebsitealsoadvisescustomersthatiftheyareconcernedaboutthewelfareoffarmedanimalsatweekends,theyshouldcontactaPrivateVeterinaryPracticeorlocalPSNIstationwhowill,asnecessary,referthewelfareconcerntotherelevantDARD‘oncall’officer;

• ThePSNI’s101and999telephoneservicesoperate24/7;and

• Councilsprovideanemergencyout-of-hoursservicebetween9amand5pmonweekendsandbankholidaysandPriority1callsmadeduringthistimearereferredtotheon-callAWOforresponse.Onweekdayscallsreceivedbetweenthehoursof5pmand9amwillberespondedtoonthenextworkingday.Casescanalsobereportedbye-mail24/7todedicatedanimalwelfarestaff.Thesewillberespondedtobycallhandlersonthenextworkingday.

TheCouncilserviceistheareawhichappearedtobeofmostconcerntostakeholders.

Councilsannuallyreceivemorethan5,500callstotheiranimalwelfareservice.TheReviewestablishedthataround900ofthesecallsaremadeduringweekendsandBankHolidays.However,lessthanhalfofthesecallsrelatedtoanimalwelfare.TheevidenceavailabletotheReviewsuggeststhateachyeararound30-40callsarereceivedwhichrequireactionoutsidenormalhours(i.e.Priority1calls).InformationonhowcallsareprioritisedisavailableatSection4.1.

Inordertoprovide24/7cover,theCouncil’sanimalwelfareservicewouldneedtoemployadditionalstafftoensurethereisadequatecovertoruntheserviceandtocomplywithrelatedlegislation,e.g.HealthandSafetyandWorkingTimelegislation.WithsuchalowvolumeofPriority1callsreceivedbytheemergencyout-of-hoursservice,theincreaseinstaffinglevelsandassociatedcostscouldbeconsideredtobedisproportionategivencurrentfinancialconstraints.Whilsttworespondentsexpressedtheirsupportfora24/7serviceprovidedbyCouncilsduringtheconsultation,theReviewconsideredtheevidencedidnotsupportthistypeofserviceatthistime.

Page77


7.5 The public and stakeholders have a strong interest in ensuring that the legislation is implemented effectively

TheReviewconsidersthatinformationshouldbemadeavailabletoallowstakeholderstoassessifthe2011Actisbeingimplementedeffectively.

Inassessingtheinformationthatiscurrentlyavailable,theReviewfoundthatarangeofinformationisbeingcollectedandpublishedatpresentbytheenforcementbodiesinavarietyofformats,asdetailedbelow.Inadditiontothis,informationisreleasedinresponsetodirectrequeststhroughAssemblyQuestions,correspondencecasesandmediarequests.

• DARDpublishesaCounterFraudandEnforcementActivitiesAnnualReport,whichprovidesdataonthenumberofanimalwelfareinvestigationsthathavebeenopenedandclosedduringtheyear,alongwithdataonprosecutions,convictionsandpenaltiesimposed.Italsoincludesashortsummaryofindividualprosecutioncases;

• ThePSNIpublishesPoliceRecordedCrimestatisticsshowingtrendsinthemainrecordedcrimetypes,butthisdoesnotincludedataonanimalwelfarecases;and

• CouncilspublishedanAnnualReportinthe2012/13financialyearsettingoutthenumberofanimalwelfarecasesinvestigated,andthenumberofImprovementNoticesissued,animalsseizedandprosecutionstaken.

TheInterimReportconcludedthatwhilearangeofinformationisavailableitisnoteasilyaccessible.Thefocusingofpublicattentiononenforcementarrangementsmayhelptodeterpotentialoffendersandencouragereportingwhereincidentsdooccur.Itwouldalsoensuregreatertransparencyandpotentiallyassistinraisingtheprofileofanimalwelfareandawarenessoftherelevantenforcementbody.

Respondentstothisissueduringtheconsultationwereinsupportofthisfinding,commentingthatanannualreportavailabletothepublicwouldenhancepublicconfidenceinreportingcrueltyandprovidethemwithmoreinformationonenforcementofthe2011Act.

TheReviewrecommendsthatanannualreportisproducedbyDARDsettingoutinformationrelevanttothepublicintermsofenforcementbyeachofthethreeenforcementbodies.Thismayincludereleasinginformationaboutthenumberandtypeofconvictions,alongwiththesentencesimposed;andreleasingotherrelevantinformationthatmightencouragethepublictoreportcases.

7.6 Stakeholders highlighted concerns that details of successful prosecutions are not being sufficiently picked up by the media and communicated to the public, and that animal welfare organisations are not fully aware of the outcomes to prosecution cases

TheReviewconsideredhowinformationinrelationtosuccessfulprosecutionsispublished.ItfoundthatwhendraftingPressReleases(PRs)enforcementbodiesgenerallyhaveaccesstostaffwhoeitherhavereceivedmediatraining,oraccesstodedicated

Page78


personnelwhohaveexperienceindraftingPRsanddealingwiththemedia.ThislevelofexpertiseensuresthatPRsareprofessionallyreviewedpriortobeingreleasedtomediaoutlets.BasedontheinformationreceivedforPRsissued,theReviewhasfoundthatpick-upratesbythemediaaregood.

AsPRsareanessentialtoolinthecommunicationprocess,theReviewrecommendsthatenforcementbodiesshouldtakestepstoensurethattheyarereleasedinsuchawayastoencourageuptakeinthemedia,thattheyaresharedasfaraspossiblewithinterestedorganisationsandthattheyaccuratelyconveythefactssurroundingthecase,forexampleanysentenceorfineimposed.TheyshouldalsoensurethattheinformationprovidedisofinteresttothepublicandthatPRsareusedeffectivelytoexplainwhatconstitutesanoffenceunderthe2011Act.TheReviewalsorecommendsthattheinclusionofcontactdetailsandalinktotheanimalwelfarewebpresenceattheendofPRsundertheheading‘NotestotheEditor’asanadditionalwayofincreasingpublicawareness.

7.7 Stakeholders commented that the public needs to be educated on the “five needs” of an animal and on animal welfare matters generally and that there should be better communication to inform the public of the role of Councils

TheReviewagreedthatwelfareproblemsmayoccurifmembersofthepublicarenotawareoftheirresponsibilitiestoensurethatanimalsdonotsufferunnecessarily.Itis,therefore,crucialthatthepublicunderstandboththeneedsofanimalsandthelegalresponsibilitiesthatapplytoapersonwhohasresponsibilityforananimal.TheReviewconcludedthatitisimportanttoreducethenumberofwelfareincidentsinthelong-termbyraisingawarenessamongthegeneralpublicoftheneedsofanimals,theresponsibilitiesofowners,andthepotentialforcriminalproceedingstobetakenagainstthosewhocauseorallowanimalstosufferunnecessarilythrougheitherneglectorabuse.TheReviewrecommendsthatthisinformationisincludedintheanimalwelfarewebpresence.ThisisanimportantissuefororganisationsthatchampionanimalwelfareaswellasenforcementbodiessuchasCouncils.ThevaluablerolethatanimalwelfareorganisationsdoplayinthiswasrecognisedandacknowledgedbytheReview.

TheReviewconsideredthepotentialtoimproveeducationandawarenessactivities,forexampleinschools,toreduceanimalwelfareconcernsinthelong-term.Thecurriculumalreadyincludesaspectswhichprovideopportunitiesforteacherstoeducateyoungpeopleaboutanimalwelfareissues.TheseincludeTheWorldAroundUsatprimarylevelandLocalandGlobalCitizenshipatpost-primarylevel.WhiletheDepartmentofEducation(DE)doesnotprescribethespecificsofwhatshouldbetaughtundereachareaoflearningortheresourcesthatshouldbeusedindeliveringthecurriculum,someanimalwelfarerelatedresourcesareprovidedfreeforallgrant-aidedschoolsthroughtheC2kManagedICTservice.TheC2kprojectprovidestheinfrastructureandservicestosupporttheenhanceduseofICT(InformationandCommunicationsTechnology)inschoolsinNorthernIreland.Someanimalwelfareorganisationsrespondedduringtheconsultationtoagainadvisetheymaybewillingtodelivertheireducationalprogrammesinschools.

InDecember2012,theDARDandDEMinistersmettodiscussissuesrelatingtoanimalwelfareandtoconsiderhowGovernmentcouldworktopromoteagreaterawarenessof

Page79


petwelfareamongchildrenandyoungpeople.TheReviewrecommendsofficialsinDARDandDEshouldmeettodiscusshowtheymighthighlightanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschools.

Themediaalsohasanimportantroletoplayineducatingthepublicaboutanimalwelfare,andinraisingawarenessofanimalowners’responsibilities.Itisimportantthereforethatjournalistsandeditorshaveaclearunderstandingofthepurposeofthe2011Actandtheenforcementpowersandsanctionswithinit,oftheneedsofanimals,andwhatislegallyrequiredofowners.

Onerespondenthighlightedthisissueduringtheconsultationstatingtheyfeltthemediashouldbefurtherbriefedontheimplicationsofcommittinganoffenceunderthe2011Actsotheycanrelaythatinformationtothepublicduringcoverageofanyprosecutioncases.

TheReviewrecommendsthatenforcementbodiesworkwiththemediatoincreasetheirunderstandingoftheissuesaroundanimalwelfare.Thisrecommendationhasbeenretainedandincludedaspartoftheawarenesscampaign(Recommendation37).

7.8 The Review considered Complaints Procedures

TheReviewlookedatthecomplaintproceduresinplacewithinthethreeenforcementbodiesandconsideredwhethermoreusecouldbemadeofevidencegatheredthroughcomplaintstoimprovetheservice.Itrecognisedthatcomplaintsareamajorsourceofinformationaboutwhatcustomer’sthinkoftheservicetheyarereceiving,andwherethingsaregoingwrong.Handlingcomplaintsproperlyshowshowimportantcustomercareisanddemonstratesthatorganisationsarelisteningtotheircustomers,learningfromtheirmistakesandcontinuallytryingtoimprovetheservice.

TheReviewfoundthatallthreeenforcementbodieshavecomplaintsproceduresinplace,whichaffordsthepublicbodytheopportunitytoinitiallyreviewthecomplaint.Ifthisisnotresolvedtothesatisfactionofthecomplainant,thecomplaintsprocedurehasanescalationprocess,ultimatelythroughtheNorthernIrelandOmbudsman,inthecaseofDARDandtheCouncilsandtheOfficeofthePoliceOmbudsmanforNorthernIreland,inthecaseofthePSNI.

InrelationtoCouncils,theInterimReporthadnotedthatanumberoftheformerCouncilsdidnothavetheircomplaintsprocedurepublishedontheirwebsites.SincetheInterimReportwaspublished,theReviewhassurveyedthewebsitesofthe11newCouncilsandwhilethemajorityhavepublishedtheircomplaintsproceduresinaclearandaccessiblemanner,anumberofothershavenotyetdoneso.TheReviewthereforerecommendsthattheCouncilscomplaintsproceduresareappropriatelypublishedandreadilyaccessibletoanimalwelfarestakeholdersandmembersofthepublic.

Page80


Recommendations

Recommendation 35: DARDestablishasingleanimalwelfarewebpresencetobringtogethercontactinformationfromallenforcementbodies,informingthegeneralpublicoftheneedsofanimals,theresponsibilitiesofowners,andthepotentialforcriminalproceedings.

Recommendation 36:DARDprovideaseriesof‘quick-guides’toexplainthelegalresponsibilitiesofanimalownersandtheenforcementarrangements.

Recommendation 37: Anawarenesscampaignbeundertakentoincreasepublicawarenessofwhotocontactiftheyareconcernedaboutthewelfareofanimals.

Recommendation 38:Enforcementbodiesrevise,updateandenhancesourcesofinformationonanimalwelfare,includingprovisionofguidance,leafletsandCoPandlinksonCouncilwebsitesandensurethattheCoPfornon-farmedanimalsshouldbepublicised.

Recommendation 39:Enforcementbodiescontinuetoencouragethepublictoreportinformationthatmightindicateawelfareconcernandconsiderhowsuchinformationisgathered,analysedandactedupontoseeifanyimprovementsarepossible.

Recommendation 40:DARDprovidesanannualreportsettingoutinformationrelevanttothepublicinrelationtotheanimalwelfareserviceprovidedbyeachofthethreeenforcementbodies.

Recommendation 41:EnforcementbodiesshouldworkwiththeirrespectivemediaservicestoreviewPressReleases(includingcontent,recipientsandtiming)tomaximiseuptake.PressReleasesshouldalsobepublishedonthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 42:EnforcementbodiesincludeastandardlineinPressReleasestoinformthepublichowtoreportananimalwelfareconcernandprovidealinktotheanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 43:OfficialsinDARDandDEtomeettodiscusshowtheymighthighlightanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschools.

Recommendation 44: Enforcementbodiesprovidebriefingmaterialonthe2011Act,includingonthewelfareneedsofanimalstomediaoutlets,whichshouldbeupdatedregularly.

Recommendation 45: Councilsappropriatelypublishcomplaintsproceduressothattheyarereadilyaccessibletoanimalwelfarestakeholdersandmembersofthepublic.

Page81


Section 8Dog Breeding and Online Pet Sales



Page82


Dog Breeding and Online Pet Sales8.1 Background

ThelegislationwhichregulatesdogbreedingistheWelfareofAnimals(DogBreedingEstablishmentsandMiscellaneousAmendments)Regulations(NI)2013(the2013Regulations)whicharemadeunderthe2011Act.

ThroughouttheUKthereareestimatedtobe8.5milliondogs.Iftheaveragelifespanofadogistakenas10years,itwouldrequire850,000pupsannuallytomaintainthispopulation.Withanestimated750,000dogsintheRepublicofIreland,acrosstheUKandRepublicofIrelandthereisclearlyahighdemandforpups.TheReviewrecognisesthatre-homingorganisationsandhobbybreedersetccannotmeetthisdemandandthatthereisaplaceforregulateddogbreedingestablishmentsmeetingacceptablewelfarestandardstohelpfillthatneed.

Historically,thosewishingtofindapet,includingpups,haveoftensourcedanimalsthroughclassifiedadvertisinginregionalnewspapers.Withthegrowthoftheinternet,onlinewebsiteshavebecomeapopularvehiclebywhichtoadvertisepetsforsale,exchangeorre-homing.

Theissuesraisedbystakeholdersinrespectofdogbreedingestablishments,andwhicharediscussedinthissection,canlargelybesummarisedunderthefollowingthemes:

• Legislationandenforcement

• Licensingandinspections

• Breedingestablishmentrequirements

• Breederidentification

• Breeding

• Trainingforbreeders

• Portchecking

• Educationofthepublic

Inaddition,theonlinesaleofpetswasanareaofconcernbyrespondentsand,givenitsrelevancetodogandpupsales,isalsodealtwithinthissection.

8.2 Legislation and enforcement

Councilsareresponsibleforenforcingthe2013Regulationswhichdefineadogbreedingestablishmentas:“oneormorepremises,withinthesameDistrictCouncilarea,operatedbythesamepersonfromwhichthatpersonkeepsthreeormorebreedingbitches;and

(a)Breedsthreeormorelittersofpuppiesinany12monthperiod;

(b)Advertisesthreeormorelittersofpuppiesforsaleinany12monthperiod;or

Page83


(c)Advertisesabusinessofbreedingorsellingpups.”

TheRegulationsclearlysetoutthewelfarestandardswhichcommercialbreedersmustcomplywithinordertoobtainadogbreedinglicence.Asaminimum,12conditions5,whicharelistedatSchedule4tothe2013Regulations,mustbemetbythebreedingestablishment.Theseconditionssetoutstandardsforaccommodation,environment,whelpingfacilities,anddietetc.The2013Regulationsprovidethepowerstoallowactiontobetakenwhereabreederdoesnotmeettheseconditions.EnforcementofthislegislationiscarriedoutbyCouncilEnforcementOfficers(aspartofCouncilDogWardenServices).TheyworkinconjunctionwithCouncilAnimalWelfareOfficers(AWOs)wherethereareparticularanimalwelfareconcerns.

ApplicationformsforadogbreedinglicencemaybeaccessedviaCouncilwebsites.Operationofadogbreedingestablishmentwithoutalicenceorincontraventionofalicenceconditionisanoffenceandapersonfoundguiltyofsuchanoffenceshallbeliable,onsummaryconviction,toafinenotexceeding£5,000orimprisonmentforatermofuptosixmonthsorboth.Thoseoperatingdogbreedingestablishmentsarealsorequiredtocomplywiththe2011Act.Breachesofanimalwelfareinsuchanestablishmentwillattracttheharsherpenaltiesavailableunderthe2011Act(seeSection2.2).

TheReviewfoundthaton30September2015,therewere25licenseddogbreedingestablishmentsacrossNorthernIrelandaccountingforsome1,023breedingbitches.ThesearelocatedacrosssixoftheelevenCouncils.Oneapplicationforalicenceforanewbreedingestablishmentwaspendingandonelicencehadbeenrevokedwithintheprevious12monthperiod.In2011(thelastyearforwhichfiguresareavailablebeforetheintroductionofthenew2013Regulations)therewere217dogbreedingestablishmentsacrossNorthernIreland.TheReviewfoundthisdropinnumbersislikelytobebecausethe2013Regulationsapplytocommercialdogbreedingbusinessesanddonotcoverindividualswhobreedtheoddlitterofpupsfromapetdog,showdog,workingdog,gundogorsheepdog.Theywerealsonotintendedtocoverorganisationssuchasregisteredhuntclubswhich,whilebreedingdogsforhunting,donotselldogsorpups.

TheReviewfoundlimitedevidencetosuggestthatthecurrentlegislationwasnotbeingimplemented.Oneprosecutionhasbeensuccessfullytakenin2015againstanoffenderoperatingabreedingestablishmentwithoutalicence.

5The licence conditions that are to be met by commercial dog breeders can be accessed at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2013/43/schedule/4/made

Page84


8.3 Stakeholders expressed concerns that the 2013 Regulations do not require verification that written programmes on socialisation, enhancement and enrichment (conditions 5 and 6 of Schedule 4) are implemented.

Therequirementofthecurrentlegislationisonlythatsocialisation,enhancementandenrichmentprogrammesarewrittendown.Verification,byCouncilEnforcementOfficers,thattheseprogrammeshavebeenimplementedwouldprovidereassurancethatbothadultdogsandpupsinbreedingestablishmentsreceiveappropriatementalandphysicalstimulationandexercise.TheReviewrecommendsthatthisrequirementshouldbeincorporatedintothe2013Regulationsattheearliestpossibleopportunity.Ideallythe2013Regulationsshouldspecificallyarticulatetheverificationrequirements.Inthemeantime,theReviewrecommendsthattheguidelinesproducedbyDARDforCouncilEnforcementOfficersshouldincludestepstorequiretheverificationoftheimplementationofsocialisation,enhancementandenrichmentprogrammesduringinspection.

8.4 Some respondents called for increased inspections of dog breeding establishments.

The2011Actprovidesforinspection,byCouncilEnforcementOfficers,oflicensedpremisesandsearchandentry,underwarrant,ofpremiseswhereanoffenceinrespectofunlicenseddogbreedingisbelievedtohavebeencommitted.Therefore,CouncilEnforcementOfficershavepowerstocarryoutinspectionsasandwhennecessary.

Councilscarryoutaninspectionofpremisesonreceiptofalicenceapplication.Licencesarerenewedannually,andthecostofthisinspectiontotheCouncilisbuiltintothelicencefee.Inaddition,Councilsundertakeadditionalinspectionsshould,forexample,conditionsbeimposedonalicence,orifbreachesoflicensingconditionsarereported.Whereappropriate,CouncilAWOsmayalsoaccompanytheCouncilEnforcementOfficer.Thecostofadditionalinspectionsisnotcoveredwithinthecostofthelicencefee.

TheReviewrecommendsthatCouncilsdrawupaprotocolforriskbased,unannouncedinspectionstoensureconsistencyacrossallCouncilareas.InadditionDARDshouldundertakeareviewoflicencefeestotakeintoaccountthecosttoCouncilsofadditionalinspections.Toensureconsistency,DARDmaywishtoreviewthelicencefeealongsideaforthcomingreviewofthelegislationforPetshops,AnimalBoardingandRidingEstablishmentsandZoos,whichwillalsocoverinspectionactivitiesandfees.

UnderSection5(4)ofthe2013Regulations,CouncilsmusthaveregardtoguidanceissuedbyDARD.ThecurrentguidanceforCouncilEnforcementOfficersbyDARDshouldbeupdatedtoreflecttherecommendationsarisingasaresultofthisReview.Thisupdatedguidanceshouldbemadeavailabletodogbreedersandmembersofthepublic,sothatallareawareoftherequirementsnecessarytoobtainadogbreedinglicence.

TheReviewnotesthattheDARDalsoproducesguidanceforotherworkareassuchasaNewOwnersGuideforanimalboardingestablishmentswhichmayhaveareadacrosstobreedingestablishments.TheReviewrecommendsthatallsuchguidanceisreviewedtoensureaconsistentapproachisadopted.

Page85


NotallCouncilshavelicenseddogbreedingestablishmentsandthesizeoftheestablishmentsinthosethatdocanvaryquitesignificantly.ThiscanmeanthatnotallCouncilEnforcementOfficershavethesamelevelofexperienceinrelationtoinspectingandlicensingbreedingestablishments.However,theCouncils’NorthernIrelandDogsAdvisoryGroup(NIDAG)hasatrainingprogrammeinplacewhichusestheskillsandexpertiseofexperiencedCouncilEnforcementOfficerstotrainotherofficerstherebyfacilitatingsharingofknowledgeensuringaconsistentapproachtoinspectionsandenforcementacrossallareasofdogcontrol,includingdogbreeding.Inaddition,CouncilOfficershavebeenliaisingwithSouthEasternRegionalCollege,toprovidebespokeDogWardenTrainingwhichisaccreditedbyarecognisedbodyatOpenCollegeNetworkLevel2,toensurethatthecoursecontentisappropriatetotheneedsoftheprofession.

TheReviewwelcomesthisproactiveapproachbyNIDAGandrecommendsthattrainingrequirementsarefinalisedfollowingtheoutcomeofthisReviewsothatanyrelevantareascanbeaddressedaspartofthisaccreditedtraining.

8.5 A number of respondents called for a cap on the numbers of dogs in a breeding establishment and also that minimum staffing levels are introduced.

TheEUDogandCatAlliancehavereviewedthelegislationacrossEuropefordogsandcatsinvolvedincommercialpractices.NootherEUcountryplacesacaponthenumberofdogsinabreedingestablishment.TheReviewconcludedthatwelfareisnotscaledependentandthattheassessmentofwelfareshouldbebasedontheconditionoftheindividualdogsthemselvesandtheenvironmentinwhichtheyarekept.Placingacapwouldalsobeeasytocircumventwithbusinessesbeingsplittocomplywithanysuchrequirements.

Generally,businessstaffinglevelsareconsideredtobeacommercialmatter.The2011Actappliestoallanimalsunderthecareofmanandcontainsstiffpenaltiesforthosewhodonotmeettheneedsoftheiranimals,orcausethemtosufferunnecessarily.The2011Actthereforeprotectsthewelfareofdogs,andshouldwelfarebecompromisedthroughlackofstaffingprovision,CouncilEnforcementOfficers(inconjunctionwithAWOs)havepowerstotakeappropriateaction.TheReviewnotedthattheWelshAssemblyhasintroducedminimumstaffingrequirementsinitsequivalentlegislation,whichcameintooperationinApril2015.WhiletheReviewconsideredthattheremaybebenefitsinthisapproachitconsidersthatitistooearlytogaugewhetheritwillbesuccessfulandifitwouldstrengthenthepowerstoprotectanimalwelfarealreadycontainedinthe2011Act.TheReview,therefore,recommendsthatDARDmonitordevelopmentsinWaleswithaviewtoconsideringthisoptioninthefuture.

Onerespondentcalledforanendtoautomatedfeedingpracticesindogbreedingestablishmentsastheyconsideritlimitstheabilityofabreedertomonitorfoodintakeandalsolimitstheopportunitiesforinteractionwithpeople.TheReviewfoundthatsomebreedersconsiderautomaticfeedershelptoensurethatallpups,andnotjustthemostdominantinalitter,haveaccesstosufficientfoodfortheirneeds.TheReviewconsidersthatthefeedingregimeshouldbeforbreederstodeterminebasedontheirexperience.Inrelationtoopportunitiesforinteraction,theReviewconcludedthatfeedingisprimarilyto

Page86


provideadogwithadequatefoodtomeetitsnutritionalrequirementandthattheactoffeedingadogshouldnotbeusedasaproxysocialisation,enhancementorenrichmentregime.TheReviewconsidersthatsocialisation,enhancement,andenrichmentshouldbeprovidedoverandaboveanyinteractionduringfeeding,notsolelythroughfeeding.TheReviewis,therefore,notmakinganyrecommendationinrespectofthefeedingregimeusedindogbreedingestablishments.

8.6 Stakeholders noted that they wanted to be able to easily identify licensed dog breeders.

Thereisanexpectationthatresponsiblepersonswishingtosourceapetshouldbeabletoidentifylicenseddogbreedersandhavereassurancethatanypuppytheymaypurchasehasbeenraisedincompliancewiththestandardssetoutinlegislation.Unlicenseddogbreederswillnotbeinapositiontoprovidesuchreassurance.Consultationwithanumberofbreedersindicatesthatmostarecontenttohavetheirbusinessname,licencenumberandemailaddress/telephonenumbermadeavailabletothepublic.Thereisreluctancebysomebreederstomakeaddressdetailsavailable,asregrettably,dogbreedingestablishmentsbothhereandintheRepublicofIrelandhavebeentargetedinthepast.

Licenseddogbreedingisalegitimatebusinessandthepublicshouldbeabletoaccessinformationtomakeaninformeddecisiononthelegitimacy,orotherwise,ofadogbreederwhensourcingapup.TheReviewrecommendsthatthepublicshouldhaveaccesstosufficientdetailsoflicenseddogbreedingestablishmentstoinformtheirdecisions.TheinformationshouldbeavailablefromCouncilsandshouldalsobeavailableonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresence.Thiswillrequirelegislativeamendmentswhichshouldbemadeattheearliestopportunity.

8.7 Some issues were raised about regulating breeding of dogs with genetic problems or exaggerated conformations.

AsmallnumberofEUcountrieshaveprovisionsintheirlegislationtopreventthebreedingofdogswhichhavegeneticproblemsorexaggeratedconformations.Duringtheconsultationcarriedoutinadvanceofintroducingthe2013Regulationstherewassomesupportforsuchaprovision.However,theseproposalswerenotincorporatedintolegislationasitwasconcludedthattheissuewasstillverymuchdeveloping,aswastheissueofgenetictesting,andthatthesciencewasnottheretosupporttheissuesatthattime.Althoughasmallnumberofrespondentstouchedonthisissue,theconsultationdidnotappeartoraisewidespreadconcerns.TheReviewconsidersthatbreedingdecisionsshouldbetakenunderveterinaryadviceandthatCouncilEnforcementOfficerswouldnotbesufficientlyqualifiedtomakedeterminationsonsuchmatters.Also,underthe2011Act,thereisadutyofcaretoallanimalsunderthecontrolofmantoensurethattheydonotsufferunnecessarily.Ultimatelyitisnotintheinterestofbreederstobreeddefectivedogs.TheReviewconcludedthatbreedingselectionisacommercialdecisionforbreedersatthistimeandhasmadenorecommendationinthisarea.

Page87


Discussionswithbreedersindicatevaryingapproachestothosedogsorbitchesnolongerusedforbreeding.Somefeltthatbitchesinparticularshouldbespayedtoensurethattheywerenotsubjectedtofurtherpregnancies.Othersfeltthatneuteringorspayingcouldresultinproblemsdownthelinefortheanimal,suchasobesityduetochangesinhormonallevels.Itwasalsosuggestedthatcommerciallyitwascheapertoeuthanizeadogorbitchthantoneuterit.Ifbreederswereforceddowntheneuteringroute,thiscouldleadtolargenumbersofbitcheswhichhavereachedtheendoftheircommercialbreedinglifebeingeuthanized,ratherthanbeingre-homed.Itisconcludedthatbreedersshouldbeencouragedtore-homealldogsorbitchesnolongersuitableforbreedingandthatnothingshouldbeintroducedthatcouldleadtoincreasedeuthanasia.TheReviewisthereforenotmakinganyrecommendationsintheseareas.

8.8 Some stakeholders wished to see a requirement for those working in dog breeding establishments to have a minimum level of competence.

Thereiscurrentlynorequirementforanylevelofcompetenceforthoseworkingwithindogbreedingestablishments.ThereareinstancesofsomeEUcountrieshavingthisrequirementforowners,stafforbothandtovaryingdegreesofcompetency.Ingeneral,respondentstotheInterimReportdidnotidentifytraining,ortheneedtoattainalevelofcompetency,asarequirementforoperatingorworkinginadogbreedingestablishment.However,onerespondentdidstatethattherearecurrentlynoopportunitiestogainqualificationsinwhatisaspecialisedskill,andthatthisneededtobeaddressedinordertobuildforthefuture.Whilstnotalegislativerequirement,breedingestablishmentsareexpectedtomakeavailableStaffTrainingPlanstoCouncilEnforcementOfficerswhenalicenceapplicationisbeingassessed.

TheCollegeofAgriculture,FoodandRuralEnterprise(CAFRE),providesstudyandindustrysupportopportunitiesacrossarangeofdisciplines.CAFRE’sGreenmountcampusofferstwoVeterinaryNursingcoursesdesignedtopreparestudentsforacareerintheveterinarynursingoranimalcareprofession.Thesecoursesarenotspecifictodogbreeding,althoughaspectsofthecoursesmaybeusefulforthoseinvolvedindogbreeding.TheEUAnimalHealthRegulation(AHR),whichisexpectedtoapplywithinthenextfewyears,mayintroducesomeresponsibilitiesforcommercialdogbreederstohaverelevantanimalhealthknowledge.DARDwillcontinuetomonitortheprogressoftheAHRandconsideritsimplicationsforanimalhealthandwelfarehere.

AreviewofthePetshops,AnimalBoardingandRidingEstablishments,andZoolegislationisduetocommencein2016priortothetransferringofthesefunctionstoCouncils.Thisreviewmayincludeconsiderationofpotentialtrainingrequirementsacrossanumberofrelateddisciplines.Inordertoensureconsistency,itwouldbeappropriatetodeferanydecisionontheintroductionoftrainingorlevelsofcompetencyuntiltheoutcomeofthereviewofthatlegislationisknown.TheReviewis,therefore,notmakinganyrecommendationinthisregard.

Page88


8.9 One respondent to the Interim Report felt that port checking of dogs movements was important.

OnerespondenttotheConsultationontheInterimReportsaidthatcheckingofdogmovementsattheportswasanimportantaspectofthedogbreedingprocessandallowedtransporters’standardstobeindependentlycheckedandrecordedeverysingletimetheytravel.ThiswasalsoanareaofconcernraisedinaBBCScotlanddocumentaryondogbreedingfirstbroadcaston15April2015.DARDportalstaffmonitorandinspecttheconsignmentsofdogstravellingthroughtheportstoensurecompliancewiththerequirementsofEUWelfareDuringTransportlegislationandundertakenon-discriminatoryrisk-basedchecksforillegaltradetoensurethatdogsbeingmovedthroughtheportstoGreatBritain:

• aremicrochipped(asrequiredbydomesticlegislationfordogsinNorthernIrelandandbyEU‘Balai’rulesfordogsbeingmovedcommerciallyfromtheRepublicofIrelandthroughNorthernIreland);and

• havetherelevantpaperwork(toincludeananimaltransportcertificateasrequiredunderanimalwelfarelegislation,aveterinaryhealthcertificateandpetpassportfordogsbeingmovedcommerciallyintoNorthernIrelandfromtheRepublicofIreland).

TheReviewiscontentthatportalstaffcarryoutriskbasedcheckstoensureanimalwelfareisnotcompromisedandtraderequirementsarecompliedwith.Norecommendationshavethereforebeenmade.

TheReviewrecognisesthatNorthernIrelandisuniquelypositionedwithintheUK,havingalandborderwiththeRepublicofIreland.Anydifferencesinthelegislationrequirementsofbothjurisdictionsmaycauseconfusionfor,orleadtoexploitationby,breedersandthosetradinginpuppies.TheReviewthereforerecommendsthatsharingofinformation,intelligence,bestpracticeandlessonslearnedbeastandingitematmeetingsoftheNorthSouthAnimalWelfareandTransportWorkingGroup,whichisattendedbyofficialsfrombothDARDandtheirsoutherncounterpartsintheDepartmentofAgriculture,FoodandtheMarine(DAFM).

8.10 Stakeholders felt that the public needed to be better informed when sourcing and buying a pup or dog.

Acommonthemethroughouttheconsultationexercisewasthesuggestionthatthepublicneededtobebetterinformedwhensourcingandbuyingapupordog.

DiscussionswiththePetAdvertisingAdvisoryGroup(PAAG),theIrishPetAdvertisingAdvisoryGroup(IPAAG),welfareorganisationsandonlinesalesorganisations,suggestthatanindividual’sdecisiononpurchasingaparticularpetisoftenquicklyswayedbyemotivefactors.Manyoftheanimalwelfareorganisationsprovideclearandsimpleguidanceforthoseconsideringsourcinganewdogorpup.TheReviewthereforeconcludedthattherealreadyisavastamountofgoodinformationavailabletothepublictoaidinthedecisionmakingprocess.

Page89


TheconditionswhichmustbesatisfiedinordertoobtainadogbreedinglicencearesetoutinSchedule4ofthe2013Regulations.Theseconditionssetoutstandardsforaccommodation,environment,whelpingfacilities,diet,etc.ApplicationformsforadogbreedinglicencemaybeaccessedfromCouncilwebsites.TheInterimReportrecommendedthatitwouldbehelpfultoboththepublicanddogbreedersiftheconditionsforobtainingadogbreedinglicenceweremoreeasilyaccessible.TheReviewcarriesthisrecommendationtothisReport.Inaddition,havingaccesstoinformationonlicensedbreederswillallowthepublictomakeinformedchoices.

Asmanyanimalsarepurchasedasfamilypetsforchildren,theReviewrecommendsthatchildrenareeducatedaboutpurchasingandcaringforpetswiththeaimofpromotinglongtermbenefitsforanimalwelfare.ThisrecommendationshouldbetakenforwardintandemwithRecommendation43(OfficialsinDARDandDEtomeettodiscusshowtheymighthighlightanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschools).

8.11 Stakeholders raised concerns about the online selling of pets

Traditionallyclassifiedadvertisingisaquick,cheapandsimplemethodofadvertisinggoodsandservicesincludinganimals.Classifiedonlinesalessiteshavebecomeincreasinglypopularasameansofsourcingorsellingpets.DiscussionswithPAAGandIPAAGindicatethatthereisadelicatebalancetobemetwhenadvertisingpetanimals.Introducingcomplexityorcertainadvertisingrequirementswillincreasethecostandtimetakentoplaceadvertisementsandwillpotentiallydriveunscrupulousownerstoclosedsitesanddeterresponsibleonlinesalescompaniesfromvoluntaryregulation.

PAAG,andmorerecentlyIPAAG,haveintroducedminimumstandardsforonlinesalescompaniestoadheretowhenacceptingclassifiedadvertsforpetsales.Bothorganisationsareinvolvedinmonitoringforadherencetotheseminimumrequirementsandalsoforbreechesinthelaw,forexamplepetsthatappeartobewelfarecompromised.DARDhasengagedwithPAAGinthepastandmorerecentlywithIPAAG.TheInterimReportrecommendedthatDARDformaliseitslinkageswithbothorganisationsandworkwiththemtopromotebetterselfregulationbyonlinesitesadvertisingpets.TheReviewispleasedtonotethatDARDhassincebecomeamemberofbothorganisations.

Araftoflegislationalreadyexiststoprotectthewelfareofanimals,ensureresponsibleownershipandprotectthepublic.Theseincludethe2011Act,the2013Regulations,TheWelfareofAnimals(DockingofWorkingDogs’TailsandMiscellaneousAmendments)Regulations(NI)2012andTheDogs(NI)Order1983,whichareenforcedbyCouncilsinrespectofdogs,TheWelfareOfAnimalsAct(NI)1972(asAmended),PetshopsRegulations(NI)2000whichareenforcedbyDARD,theConsumerProtectionfromUnfairTradingRegulations2008andtheFraudActwhichareenforcedbyTradingStandards.Whenbuyingapet,itisimportantthatthepublicareawareofthelegislationandtherelevantenforcementbodiesthattheyhaverecoursetoo.TheReviewrecommendsthatrelevantlinks/guidancebeincludedonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresencetoassistthepublicfurtherinthisarea.

Page90


HistoricallyDARDhasappliedthelegislationrelatingtopetshopsonlytopremisestowhichthepublichasaccess.However,aspartoftheforthcomingreviewofthepetshoplegislation,DARDareconsideringincludingtheonlinesellingofpetsfromotherpremises,includingonlineadvertisingfromaperson’shome,aspartofthisreview.TheReviewrecommendsDARDincludetheissueofsellingpetsfromallpremisesaspartofitsconsultationwhenreviewingandrevisingthelegislationrelatingtopetshops,ridingandanimalboardingestablishments.

Recommendations:

Recommendation 46:GuidelinesshouldberevisedtorequireCouncilEnforcementOfficerstoverifyimplementationofsocialisation,enhancementandenrichmentprogrammesduringinspections;andthisrequirementshouldbewrittenintotheRegulationsattheearliestpossibleopportunity.

Recommendation 47:CouncilsshoulddrawupaprotocolforriskbasedunannouncedinspectionstoensureconsistencyacrossalllocalCouncilareas.

Recommendation 48:DARDandCouncilsshouldcarryoutareviewoflicencefeesfordogbreedingestablishments.ThisshouldbeonthebasisoffullcostrecoveryofcoststotheCouncilsandshouldtakeintoaccounttheneed,onoccasions,formultipleinspectionsofdogbreedingestablishments.Toensureconsistencyofapproach,thisreviewofthelicencefeeshouldbecarriedoutintandemtoaforthcomingreviewofthelegislationforPetshops,AnimalBoardingandRidingEstablishmentsandZooswhichwillalsocoverinspectionactivitiesandfees.

Recommendation 49: TheGuidanceforCouncilEnforcementOfficersissuedbytheDARDtoCouncilsshouldbereviewed,inconjunctionwithCouncils,byDARDandstrengthened.ThisstrengthenedguidanceshouldbemadeavailabletoDogBreedersandmembersofthepublicviathesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 50:DARDreviewsguidanceforworkareassuchasaNewOwnersGuideforanimalboardingestablishmentstoensureaconsistentapproachisadopted.

Recommendation 51:Councilsfinalisetrainingrequirements,followingtheoutcomeofthisReview,sothatanyrelevantareascanbeaddressedaspartofanaccreditedtrainingcourse.

Recommendation 52:DARDshouldmonitortheimplementationofstafftodogratioconditionsbylocalauthoritiesinWaleswithaviewtoconsideringthisoptioninthefuture.

Recommendation 53:DARDtoamendlegislationtoallowthedetailscontainedwithinCouncilheldregistersofLicensedDogBreedingEstablishmentstobemadeavailabletothepublicandonthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 54:DARDandDAFMtoincludedogbreedingandthemovementofdogsasastandingitematmeetingsoftheNorthSouthAnimalWelfareandTransport

Page91


WorkingGroup,tofacilitatethesharingofinformation,intelligence,bestpracticeandlessonslearned.

Recommendation 55: TheconditionsrequiredforobtainingadogbreedinglicenceshouldbemadeavailableonCouncilwebsites,andthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 56: DARDinconjunctionwithDEtoconsiderincludingbuyingandcaringforapupinanyanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschoolsarisingfromimplementationofRecommendation43;andincluderelevantlinks/guidanceonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 57:DARDshouldformaliseitslinkswithPAAGandIPAAGandworkwiththeseorganisationstopromotebetterselfregulationbyonlinesitesadvertisingpets.

Recommendation 58:DARDandCouncilsshouldraiseawarenessofthelegislationavailable,andtherelevantenforcementbodies,thatthepublichaverecoursetobytheinclusionofrelevantlinks/guidanceonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresence.

Recommendation 59:DARDincludestheissueofsellingpetsfromallpremisesaspartofitsconsultationwhenreviewingandrevisingthelegislationrelatingtopetshops,ridingandanimalboardingestablishments.

Page92




Section 9Equines

Page93


Equines9.1 Background

UndertheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act)responsibilityforenforcementinrelationtonon-farmedanimals,includingequines,sitswithCouncils.Thepowersandoffencesinrelationtoequinesarethesameasforothernon-farmedanimals(seesection4.1).Inadditiontotheoffencesinrelationtounnecessarysuffering,the2011Actmakesitanoffenceif,withoutreasonableexcuse,apersonabandonsananimalforwhichtheyareresponsiblewithoutmakingadequateprovisionforitswelfare.

Inthecaseofequinesabandonedonland,theCouncilshaveresponsibility,underthe2011Act,onlyiftheanimalissufferingorislikelytosufferifitscircumstancesdonotchange.Whenattendingtoareportofanabandonedequine,theCouncilAnimalWelfareOfficer(AWO)considerstheconditionoftheanimalanditsenvironment.Iftheanimal’swelfareiscompromised,theAWOhasthepowertoseizetheanimalandtakeitintocare.TheAWOwillattempttoidentifyanownerandarrangeforthecareoftheanimalwhilstaDisposalOrderforitissoughtthroughtheCourts.Iftheanimal’swelfareisnotadverselyaffected,theAWOhasnopowertoseizetheanimalbutwillinsteadtrytotracetheowner,whilecontinuingtomakeregularvisitstocheckthattherehasbeennodeteriorationintheanimal’sconditionorenvironment.

TheRoads(NI)Order1993makesitanoffenceforapersontoturnlooseanyanimalontoaroadandforakeeper’sanimaltobefoundwanderingorlyingonthesideofaroad,unlessthekeeperhastakenreasonableprecautionstopreventthesituation.InsuchcasesthePSNIcanseizetheanimalandprosecutethekeeper.

TheAnimals(NI)Order1976(the1976Order)isaboutcivilliabilityandcoversmatterssuchasanimalscausingdamageorstrayingontoneighbouringland.ThelegislationdealswithissuesbetweenprivateindividualsandalsoprovidespowersforthePSNItoimpoundanimalswanderingonpublicroads.DARDandCouncilshavenoenforcementresponsibilitiesunderthislegislationandtherearenoprovisionsrelatingtoanimalwelfarecontainedwithinit.The1976Orderhasbeenreferredtoinrelationtocasesofabandonedanimals,althoughtheterm‘abandoned’isnotincludedinthe1976Order.

Inthecaseofananimalabandonedonalandowner’sproperty,underArticle9ofthe1976Orderalandownermaydetainanimalsabandonedonhisland.Thisrightceasesafter48hours,unlessthePSNIandtheowner(ifknown)arenotified.ItisconsideredasgoodpracticebythelandownertoplaceanoticeregardingtheanimalsonthelandandgiveacopyofthedetentionnoticetothePSNI.Ifafter14days,noonehasclaimedtheanimals,thelandownermaysellthematmarketorpublicauction.Anyexpenditureincurredbythelandownermayberecoveredintheeventofthesaleoftheanimals.

Inthecaseofequinesabandonedorwanderingontheroad,the1976OrdergivesthePSNIpowerstoimpoundtheanimalandarrangeforitscare.ThePSNIareobligedtopostnoticesadvisingthattheyhaveimpoundedtheanimal,beforeretainingtheanimal

Page94


foraperiodof14daystogivetheownerthechancetocomeforward.Intheeventthattheownerdoesnotcomeforwardwithintwoweeks,thePSNImayarrangeforthesaleoftheanimalatamarketorpublicauction.

The1976Orderwasdraftedbeforetherequirementsofmicrochippingandpassportingofequinescameintoforce.Sinceitcameintooperationlegislativerequirementsforthetraceability,saleanddisposaloflivestockhavebeenintroduced.TheserequirementsneedtobefulfilledbeforealandownerorthePSNIseekstoselllivestockthathasbeentakenintopossessionundertheprovisionsofthe1976Order.Therearefewoutlets(salesandfairs)tosellequinesnowcomparedtowhenthelegislationcameintooperation.Thisthereforelimitstheoutletsthatalandownerhastorecoverthecostsassociatedwithinvokingtheprovisionsofthe1976Order,includingthecostsassociatedwithgettingapassportandmicrochippingtheanimal.

TheHorsePassportsRegulations(NI)2010ontheidentificationofequidaeareprimarilytoprotectthehumanfoodchainandhavebeeninoperationsinceMarch2010.TheseRegulationsimplementCommissionRegulation(EC)No.504/2008andareintendedtoensurethathorsesdonotenterthehumanfoodchainiftheyhavebeentreatedwithcertainveterinarymedicinesharmfultohumanhealth.Theregulationsrequirethat:

• horsesaremicrochippedandhaveapassport(withdetailscorrespondingtothemicrochip);

• horsesareaccompaniedbytheirpassportswhenbeingtransported(unlessinanemergency);and

• theownerwhosellsahorsegivesitspassporttothebuyerattimeofsale.

Itshouldbenotedthathorsesbornbefore1July2009arenotrequiredtobemicrochipped.From2016,newCommissionRegulation(EU)2015/262willrequiretheestablishmentofacentralequinedatabaseforeachMemberState.

9.2 Stakeholders identified an issue with the lack of up-to-date information on the size of the equine population here.

IntheInterimReport,theReviewacknowledgedthattherewaslimitedinformationaboutthenumberofequinesandsocommissionedworktotrytoestablishanevidencebase.

DARDcurrentlyholdsinformationinrelationtojustover11,000equines.ThisinformationisgatheredaspartoftheFarmSurveyReturnsandisheldonAPHIS.Itisacknowledgedthatthisisonlypartofthepicture,andinordertogathermorecomprehensiveinformation,82passportissuingorganisationsbothinNorthernIrelandandinGreatBritainwerecontacted.Despiteseveralremindersbeingissued,theresponseratewasapproximately60%.Basedonthosewhodidprovidefactualinformation,thenumberofregisteredequineshereisapproximately34,250.ThisisclosetothefindingsofanNIAssemblyBriefingPaperinDecember2010thatestimatedtheretobeover35,000equinesintotalinNorthernIreland.

Page95


9.3 Stakeholders raised the issue of abandoned horses.

PublicstakeholdersraisedissuesaroundabandonmentofequinesduringtheReviewprocess.CouncilsandPSNIalsoraisedconcernsaboutthenumberofabandonedhorsestheyarerequiredtoseizeandthesubsequentcareandcollectioncosts.Theycanfaceunavoidabledelaysinre-homingabandonedanimalsthathavebeenseized,astheymustfirstseekaDisposalOrderthroughthecourts,evenwhentheybelievethatthehorseshavebeendeliberatelyabandonedandanownercannotbeidentified.

Underthe2011Act,apersoncommitsanoffenceif,withoutreasonableexcuse,thatpersonabandonsananimalforwhichthatpersonisresponsible,leavingitunattendedandfailingtomakeadequateprovisionforitswelfare.

WhilewelfareorganisationshavetoldtheReviewaboutthelargenumberofabandonedhorsesthataretakeninbysanctuaries,nostatisticalinformationwasprovidedtoallowthescaleoftheissuetobeaccuratelyassessed.TheReviewcommissionedworktobeundertakeninanattempttogatherinformation.ThethreemainequinewelfarecharitiesinNorthernIreland,aswellastheEquineCouncilforNorthernIreland(ECNI),werecontactedinanattempttosourcedataontheextentofequineabandonments.ContactwasalsomadewithotherorganisationsthatreferredtoabandonedequinesintheirfeedbacktotheInterimReport.However,despiteremindersandvisitstotwooftheequinecharities,nosupportingdatainrelationtothenumberofabandonedequineswasprovided.InlightofthistheReviewlookedatinformationcurrentlyavailable.

FigurespublishedintheInterimReportshowthatduringthetwoandahalfyearperiodfromApril2012untilSeptember2014,Councilstookintotheirpossession131abandonedhorses,ofwhichsixwerereturnedtotheirowners.ThisequatestoCouncilshavingtodealwithjustoverfourabandonedequinespermonth(approximatelyoneperweek)overthestatedperiod.TheReviewrecognisesthatonoccasionsmultiplehorsesmaybeinvolvedinacase.Suchalargescaleseizurecanberesourceintensive.TheseizurebyCouncilsof131abandonedequinesoveratwoandahalfyearperiodresultedincareandcollectioncostsof£181,000.ThisamountrepresentsaconsiderablestrainonCouncilresources,whichcannotthenbeusedforotherwelfareenforcementactivities.

FiguresprovidedbythePSNIshowthatduringa21-monthperiodfrom1April2013until31December2014,172equineswereseizedbythePSNI.Thisequatestojustovereighthorsespermonth(approximatelytwoperweek).SomeDistrictshadasignificantlyhighernumberofequinesseizedcomparedtoothers.In2014alone,thePSNIspentover£265,000onthecareandcollectionof111abandonedequinesthatweretakenintopossession.

Morerecently,fortheperiodJanuarytoSeptember2015thePSNIseized31equinesthatwerewanderingontheroadswherenoownerswereidentified.Thisequatestodealingwithjustoverthreeequinespermonthduringthisninemonthperiod.AtthebeginningofNovember2015twelveequineswereinthecareofthePSNI,withDisposalOrdersstilltobegranted.

Page96


BeforeCouncilsorPSNIcandisposeofanabandonedequine(evenonethatisnotmicrochippedandthereforetheownercannotbetraced)theymustseekaDisposalOrderfromtheCourts.ThetimetakentoobtainaDisposalOrderandallowtherelatedtimescalesforappealtoexpire(whichmusthappenbeforeanyactioncanbetaken),canresultinconsiderableongoingcarecosts.

Theterm“flygrazing”hasbeenadoptedtodescribeactionsbyirresponsibleownerswhoallowanimalstograzeonlandwheretheydonothavetheconsentoftheoccupierofthelandorwheretheconsenthasbeenwithdrawn.Theseactionsoftenimpactonpublicsafety(throughstrayingontohighways),oncommunities(publicandprivatelyownedland),theagriculturalindustry,thewelfareoftheanimalsconcerned,aswellasplacingfinancialburdensonindividualsandonthetaxpayer.

TheReviewisawarethatinWales,theControlofHorses(Wales)Act2014cameintoforceon27January2014.Itwasbroughtintoaddressasignificantissuearound“flygrazing”.

TheActgiveslocalauthoritiespowertoseizeandimpoundahorsewhichisonthehighway,oranyotherpublicplacethelocalauthorityhasresponsibilityfor,oronotherlandinitsareawithouttheconsentoftheoccupierofthatland.Thelocalauthoritymusthavereasonablegroundstobelievethehorseisonthelandwithoutlawfulauthoritybeforeitcanusethesepowers,whichincludesellingordisposalifunclaimedafteraretentionperiodof7days.

EnglandhasmadesimilarprovisionbybringingintoforcetheControlofHorsesAct,whichreceivedRoyalAssenton26March2015.However,theretentionperiodforimpoundedequinesis96hours(4days).IntheRepublicofIreland(ROI),theControlofHorseslegislationwasintroducedtoaddresstheserioushealthandsafetyissuesarisingfromtheurbanhorseproblemsofthemid-1990s.

IntheNorthernIrelandcontext,thereisaperceptionthatflygrazedequinesmaybeabandoned.CasesareoftenreportedbutfollowingattendancebyanAWOthereisseldomawelfareconcern.However,thereisstillanongoingresourcerequirementintermsofundertakingsubsequent‘drive-bys’tomonitorandensurethewelfareoftheanimalortheconditionsinwhichitisbeingkept,havenotdeteriorated.OwnersoftheequinesarenotalwaysimmediatelyknownbuttheReviewfoundthatonceanoticeisleftbytheAWO,theissuenormallygetsresolved.Inmostcases,thecomplainthasbeenmadeasawaytotrytogetridofwhatisseenbythecomplainantasanuisanceproblem,usingtheAWOservicetoresolveit.AWO’shaveestablishedgoodlocalrelationships,whichassistinresolvingcasesofequinesbeingflygrazed,locatingownersandencouragingthemtoactresponsibly.

TheReviewdidnotfindsufficientevidencetosuggesttheissueofflygrazingisassignificantastheprobleminWales,EnglandortheROI.

Onthebasisoftheinformationreceivedandtheevidencegatheredthescaleoftheissuedoesnotsuggesttheneedtointroduceprimarylegislationtodealwithabandonedorflygrazedequines,atthistime.

Page97


However,theReviewdoesacknowledgetheconsiderablepublicnuisancecausedbyabandonedanimals,aswellasthesignificantresourceandstafftimethatthePSNIandCouncilshavetoallocatetodealwiththem.

Toaddressthis,theReviewbelievesitwouldbepossibletoamendthe2011Acttoaddaclausetoenableanacceleratedprocessforthere-hominganddisposalofabandoned,unidentifiedequines.Thisshouldincludeashorterretentionperiodforunidentifiedabandonedequineswhoseownercannotbeestablished,similartotheretentionperiodsintheControlofHorseslegislationinEnglandandWalesandalreadyinplacehereforthecontrolofdogs.TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDconsidersbringingforwardthisamendment.

InthemeantimetheReviewrecommendsthatwhenequinesaretakenintopossessiontheauthorityapplyingfortheDisposalOrdershouldclearlyinformthecourtthattheequinesarenotmicrochipped.Thisshouldensurethatthecourtsareawarethatitisnotpossibletoestablishownershipofequines,highlightthebreachoftheHorsePassportRegulationsandallowthemtoprocesstherequestmorequickly.Inallcases,equineswillstillremainincareforaminimumnumberofdayswhichwillbesufficientforanyresponsibleownertocomeforward.

Aspreviouslystated,the1976OrderrequiresthePSNItoretainananimalwanderingontothepublicroadforaperiodoffourteendaysbeforedisposal.Theoutletsfordisposalofsuchanimalsarenowverylimitedcomparedtowhenthe1976Ordercameintooperationandinadditionthereisthelegislativerequirementforequinestobemicrochippedandpassportedbeforebeingsold.InordertoaddressthisissuetheReviewrecommendsthattheDepartmentofFinanceandPersonnel(DFP)reviewthe1976Ordertoreflectthecurrentlegislativerequirementsregardingtraceabilityandpassportingandthelimitedavailabilityofoutletstosellorauctionanimalsthathavebeentakenintopossession,includingretentionperiods.

9.4 Some stakeholders requested that a cull of unwanted equines be funded (or financial support provided to owners dispose of equines).

Councilsareresponsibleforenforcementofthe2011Actinrespectofnon-farmedanimals,includinghorses.InadditiontotakingforwardprosecutionsandissuingImprovementNotices,AWOsmayalsoissueadviceandguidancetothoseresponsiblefortheanimalswellbeing.

Anyonewithconcernsregardingthewelfareofhorses,orthoseseekingadviceinthecaringforhorses,shouldcontacttheirlocalAWO.DARDhasissuedaCodeofPracticefortheWelfareofHorses,whichisavailableontheirwebsite.

CallsforacullweremadeattheheightoftheequinecrisisafewyearsagointheRepublicofIreland.However,aschemeforacullwasnotbroughtforwardatthattimeasitwasfeltthatthiswasdrivenbycommercialinterestandwouldbeessentiallyrewardingpoorbreedingandpoorbuying,whichthetaxpayerwouldpayfor.

Page98


TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDcontinuestomonitorthelevelofequinewelfareandabandonmentcasesandkeeptheneedforactionunderreview.ThisshouldincludecontinuingtoengagewithDepartmentofAgriculture,FoodandtheMarine(DAFM)officialsthroughtheNorthSouthAnimalWelfareandTransportWorkingGroup.

9.5 Stakeholders felt that the passport regime should be rigorously enforced, with a full database of equines in Northern Ireland.

StakeholdersviewedtheenforcementoftheHorsePassportRegulationsasarequirementtoeffectivelyaddressissuesrelatingtoabandonedhorses,suchastracingowners,equinemovements,andindiscriminatebreeding.WhilsttheReviewrecognisesthattheHorsePassportRegulationsmayprovidefortheidentificationofhorses,itmustberecognisedthattheprimarypurposeoftheseRegulationsistoprotectthefoodchain.Sincetheintroductionofthehorsepassportlegislation,DARDVeterinaryService(DARDVS)hasundertakenhorseidentitychecksathorsemarkets,portsandthehorseabattoiratOakdale,Lurgan(whenitwasoperatingasahorseabbatoir).DARDVSalsoco-operatescloselywithotherenforcementbodiesintheROIandGreatBritainininvestigationsconcerningbothequinewelfareandequineidentificationandmovement.HorsesleavingBelfastandLarnePortsarecheckedforaccompanyingpassports.Asmallnumberofhorsesarecheckedwithascannerforthepresenceofcorrespondingmicrochips.Horsespresentedwithoutpassportshavebeenrefusedpermissiontoboard.AdetailedinventoryofallequinespassingthroughLarneandBelfastPortsismaintainedbyDARDPortalInspectors.ThisinformationissharedwithDAFM.

InlinewiththenewCommissionRegulation(EU)2015/262comingintoeffect,DARDintendstocarryoutawarenessraisingwithintheequinesectorin2016,tofullycommunicatetherequirementsofthehorsepassportsystemintermsofapplyingforapassport,microchipping,transferofownership,andtheimplicationsofnon-compliance.TheReviewrecommendsthatthisopportunitybeusedtohighlighttheconsequencesofanunidentifiedhorsebeingtakenintopossessiononwelfaregrounds.

9.6 Some stakeholders said that equine premises should be registered and inspected.

TheregistrationofpremiseswhereequinesarekepthasalreadybeenconsideredbyDARDfordiseasecontrolpurposes.ItisacknowledgedthatEquinePremisesNumbersareallocatedforridingschoolslicensedbyDARD,followingon-farmvisitswhenitisestablishedthatequinesarepresentonthefarm.TheEquinePremisesNumbersarecurrentlyrecordedonAPHIS.Inaddition,the‘GuidetoLandEligibility’publishedbyDARDindicatedthatlandgrazedbyequineswouldbeconsideredanagriculturalactivityforthepurposesoftheBasicPaymentScheme.ThishasledtoanincreaseinrequestsforEquinePremisesNumbers.Therefore,theregistrationofpremiseswhereequinesarekeptisseenasassistinginthetraceabilityofequines.

Inaddition,theemergenceofequinerelatedepizooticdiseasesplacesagreateremphasisontheneedtobeabletolocateequinesintheeventofadiseaseoutbreak,forexample,similartothetraceabilityof“backyardflocks”intheeventofanavianinfluenzaoutbreak.

Page99


TheReviewisconsciousthattheEUiscurrentlyworkingonanewanimalhealthframeworkregulation.TheEUAnimalHealthRegulation(AHR)isaframeworkregulationwhichwillreplaceandconsolidatemostoftheexistinglegislationonanimalhealth,someofwhichhasbeeninforcesincethe1960’s.Itcoversallaspectsofanimalhealthincludingdiseasecontrolmeasures;identification,registrationandmovementsofanimalsandestablishments/premises;intraEUtrade;entryintotheEUofanimalsandproducts;andaquaculture.TheRegulationhasbeenagreedandwillbepublishedintheOfficialJournalinspring2016,thoughmuchofthedetailisstilltobedevelopedoverthenextthreeyearsduringthetertiarylegislationnegotiationphase.Thedetailonequinepremisesregistrationwillbepartofthesenegotiations.TheRegulationmeasuresareexpectedtobefullyinforceby2021.

TheReviewrecommendsthattheissueofregistrationofequinepremisesisreviewedonceclarityaroundEUrequirementsinthisareaisobtained.

9.7 Some stakeholders believe that equines movements should be recorded.

Thehorseisnotconsideredtobeanagriculturalanimalandthereisnorequirementtorecordthemovementofhorsesinthesamewaythatmovementofagriculturalanimalssuchascattle,sheepandpigsarerecorded.Allhorsesbeingmovedmustbeaccompaniedbytheirpassportexceptwhen:

• stabledoronpastureandthepassportcanbeproducedwithoutdelay;

• movedtemporarilyonfootinthevicinityoftheholdingandthepassportcanbeproducedwithoutdelay;

• movedonfootbetweensummerandwintergrazing;

• unweanedandaccompaniedbytheirdamorfostermare;

• participatingintrainingoratestatanequestriancompetitionwhichrequiresthemtoleavetheeventvenue;

• movedortransportedunderemergencyconditions.

Inadditiontothepassport,thereisarequirementforahealthcertificatetoaccompanyahorsetravellingwithintheEU.TheonlyhorsesthatdonotrequireahealthcertificateinadditiontoapassportarethosecoveredbytheTripartiteAgreementbetweentheUK,IrelandandFrance.MovementsofhorsesbetweenthesecountriesownedbymembersofapprovedindustrybodiesarereportedthroughtheCommission’sTradeControlandExpertSystem(TRACES).DARDPortalstaffalsorecorddetailsofConsignorsandConsigneesvehicledetailsandanynoncompliancesrelatingtoequineimportsandexports.

9.8 A view expressed by stakeholders was that access to the human food chain should be addressed to reduce the number of unwanted, valueless equines.

AllmeatproducedforhumanconsumptionmustcomplywithEuropeanfoodhygienerequirements.ThereisnothingtopreventhorsesfrombeingpresentedforslaughterforthehumanfoodchainprovidedtheycomplywithspecificprovisionsofCouncil

Page100


Regulation853/2004andtheirpassportsarepresentedforinspection.Ahorsepassportshouldcontainarecordofallmedicinesadministeredtothehorseinitslifetime.

DARDhasaresponsibilityforlicensingsuchpremisesandresiduetestingisundertakenatthepointofslaughter.TherearecurrentlynooutletsinNorthernIrelandforhorsestobeslaughtered,howevertheROIhasanabattoiracceptinghorses.

Theavailabilityofanabattoirtoslaughterhorsesisacommercialdecisionfortheprivatesector.Shouldarequestbemadetoapproveanapplicationforslaughteringequines,thiswouldbepartofnormallicensingworkbyDARD.

9.9 Stakeholders stated that indiscriminate breeding must be addressed.

Thereisnodoubtthatthosepersonsbreedinghorsesneedtotakeresponsibilityfortheirbreedingdecisions.Thisincludescastratinganimalswherenecessarytoavoidunwantedbreedingandrecognisingthatbreedingbadlywillresultinanimalswithoutamarket.

ThemajorityofbreedersinNorthernIrelandregisterfoalswithHorseSportIreland(HSI).Inits2014AnnualReport,HSInotesareductioninthenumberoffoalsregisteredintheIrishHorseRegister.Thenumberfellfrom5,160in2013to4,548in2014,a12%drop.Thisshowsthatbreedersarerespondingtothemarketplace,recognisingthatthereisnopointbreedingfoalsunlesstheirpurposeisclearlyknown.

Tacklingindiscriminatebreeding,however,willrequirefullsupportacrosstheindustry.TheReviewfoundgoodexamplesofthisalreadyhappening,forexample,CAFREdeliversavarietyoftrainingcoursesspecificallydirectedtothoseinvolvedintheequineindustry.Coursescoverpracticalskillsdevelopment,generalequinemanagementandtechnicalsubjectssuchasbreeding,nutritionandlegislation.ThenumberofcourseparticipantssinceApril2013isalmost1,300.AfurtherCAFRELevel3HorseCareandManagementCoursecommencedinSeptember2015andanonlineEquineBehaviourandWelfarecoursestartedon13January2016.AcertificateinthePrinciplesofHorseCarealsocommencedfrom3February2016.Iftheindustryidentifiesthatthereisaspecifictrainingneed,CAFREiscontenttodiscussrequirementswithaviewtodevelopinganddeliveringanappropriatecourse.

Inaddition,aspartoftheongoingprovisionoftrainingandeducationforequineownersandtheequineindustry,CAFREhostedanEquineBreedingConferenceinNovember2015toinformthoseinvolvedinbreedingequines.Thisincludedidentifyingandselectingbreedingstockandassistedinpromotingresponsiblebreedingpractices.

TheBritishHorseSociety(BHS)hasannouncedplansfornationalcastrationclinicsplannedforSpring2016.

ECNI,astheindustryrepresentativebody,alsohasaroleinprovidingadviceandinformationtoitsmembersandtheoverallequinesectorinrelationtobreedingselectionandresponsibleownership.TheReviewrecommendsthatindiscriminatebreedingbeincludedasathemeintheEquineCo-ordinationGroupCommunicationStrategy(seerecommendationinsection9.14).

Page101


9.10 Some stakeholders suggested a stallion tax should be introduced.

TheReviewfoundthatHSIandtheIrishHorseBoardhaveastallionselectionschemeinoperation,whichrequiresspecificcriteria,includingrecordedbreedingandperformancerequirements,tobecompliedwithduringstallionassessment.Stallionownersarerequiredtohavetheirstallionsvettedandx-rayedandincurthecostsforthis,includingpayingtheHSIassessmentfees.Thisprocessistoensurethatonlythosestallionsdeemedeligibletobeconsideredas‘approvedstallions’progressthroughtheassessmentstages.Somestallionsmaynotprogressthroughtoachievetheultimate‘approved’status.

Inaddition,competitionstallionsthatareregisteredwithaffiliatebodiessuchasShowjumpingIrelandarerequiredtopayahighercompetitionregistrationfeeknownasastallionsurcharge.

Withtheseschemesalreadyinoperation,theReviewhasconcludedthatthecostsofintroducingandenforcingastalliontaxationschemewouldfaroutweighthebenefitsofsuchaproposal.ECNI,astheindustryrepresentativebody,hasaroleinprovidingadviceandinformationtoitsmembersandtheoverallsectorinrelationtocoltretention,managingstallions,breedingselectionandresponsibleownershipandtheReviewrecommendationinrelationtoindiscriminatebreedingmaybeamorepracticalwayofraisingawareness.

9.11 Some of the feedback received suggested that the horse should be redefined as an agricultural animal.

HorsesarenotconsideredtobeagriculturalanimalshereandtheyarenotdefinedassuchintheAgricultureAct(NI)1949.Thedefinitionof‘livestock’assetoutinsection43oftheActis,‘anyanimalkeptfortheproductionoffood,wool,skinsorfur,andanyanimalkeptforthepurposeofitsuseinthefarmingofland’.

Considerationofthere-designationofthehorseasanagriculturalanimalwasakeyactioninthe‘StrategyfortheEquineIndustryinNorthernIreland’andwastakenforwardbytheECNIwhichconcludedin2012thatachangeinthestatusofthehorsewasnotnecessaryordesirable.Ifstakeholdersnowbelievethattheindustryhaschangedandre-designation/reclassificationofthehorseisneeded,theyshouldengagewithECNI,astherepresentativebodyfortheequinesector.

9.12 Some stakeholders suggested that responsibility for enforcement in relation to equines should lie with DARD.

The2011ActprovidespowersforDARDtoundertakewelfareenforcementinrelationtofarmedanimalsandforCouncilstoenforcethelegislationinrespectofcompanionanimals,thatis,domesticpetsofanyvertebratespeciesandhorses.ThePSNIenforcestheActincasesofwildanimals,animalfightingandinwelfarecaseswhereothercriminalactivityisinvolved.

TheReviewfoundnoevidencethatthecurrentsystemwasnotworking.

Page102


9.13 Euthanasia was referred to by some stakeholders.

Itisrecognisedthatwhilstitisadiscussionmostownersmaywishtoavoid,euthanasiaisarealisticoptiontobeconsideredwhenaddressingthefutureofill,ageingorunwantedequines.

Insituationswhereanownercannolongeradequatelyprovidefortheiranimalorwheretheequinecannolongerfulfilthepurposeforwhichitwasbred,ownersshouldbeproactiveinseekingtodisposeoftheanimalbeforeitswelfareiscompromised.Thismayincludeconsiderationoftheoptionofhumanedisposalwherethehorsecannotbesold/transferredtoanotherresponsibleowner.Suchactionwillhelppreventtheemergenceoflong-termandsevereanimalwelfareproblems.

TheBHShasinformativearticlesinrelationtoeuthanasiathatshouldbeincludedintheDARDAnimalWelfarewebpresence.TheReviewrecommendsthateuthanasiaisathemeintheEquineCo-ordinationGroupCommunicationStrategy(seerecommendationinsection9.14).

9.14 Communications.

OnnumerousoccasionsduringthediscussionsonequineissuestheReviewfeltthatamultiagencyapproachinrelationtocommunicationswouldbebeneficial.TheReviewisawarethatDARDhasanEquineCo-ordinationGroupwhichincludesrepresentativesfrompolicyanddeliverybrancheswithinDARDaswellasCAFREandECNI.TheReviewrecommendsthatthisgroupdevelopsacommunicationstrategytoensurethatrelevantmessagesaredisseminatedacrosstheequineindustryatalllevelsinajoinedupandconsistentway.Itisenvisagedthecommunicationsstrategywouldincorporatemanyoftheissuesthathaveariseninthisreviewacrosstherangeofstatutoryandindustryledissues,forexample:

• indiscriminatebreeding;

• endoflifedecisions;and

• passportandmicrochiprequirements.

Page103


Recommendations

Recommendation 60:ThelegislativerequirementfortheregistrationofpremiseswhereequinesarekepttobereviewedbyDARDbasedontheReviewfeedback,andwhenfurtherinformationisavailableonwhat,ifany,requirementsmaybeincludedinthenewEUAHRs.

Recommendation 61:TheEquineCoordinationWorkingGrouptodevelopamultiagencycommunicationstrategytodisseminaterelevantstatutoryandindustrymessages.

Recommendation 62:DARDtosupporttheBritishHorseSocietyinplanningtheirSpring2016castrationclinichere.

Recommendation 63:TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDcontinuestomonitorthelevelofequinewelfareandabandonmentcasesandkeeptheneedforactionunderreview.ThisshouldincludecontinuingtoengagewithDAFMofficialsthroughtheNorthSouthAnimalWelfareandTransportWorkingGroup.

Recommendation 64:DARDseektoamendthe2011Acttoaddaclausetoenableanacceleratedprocessforthere-homingordisposalofabandoned,unidentifiedequines.

Recommendation 65:CouncilstocontinuetomonitortheongoingtraininganddevelopmentrequirementsofAnimalWelfareOfficersinrelationtoequinemanagementandwelfare.

Recommendation 66:DARDtohighlighttheconsequencesofanunidentifiedhorsebeingtakenintopossessiononwelfaregroundsinitsplannedCommunicationsstrategyinrelationtotheHorsePassportRegulations.

Recommendation 67:Inrelationtoabandonedequinesthatarenotmicrochippedandthereforetheirpreviousownershipcannotbeestablished,ensurethatanyDisposalOrderstatesthattheequinesarenotmicrochippedandownershipisuntraceable.Thisistoensurethatthecourtisawarethatitwillnotbepossibletoestablishanyownershipfortheseunidentifiedequines,inadditiontobeinginbreachoftheHorsePassportRegulations(note:onlyequinesbornafterJune2009requiremicrochip).

Recommendation 68:DFPtoreviewtheAnimalsOrder1976toreflectthecurrentlegislativerequirementsregardingtheelectronictraceabilityofanimalsandpassportingandthelimitedavailabilityofoutletstosellorauctionanimalsthathavebeentakenintopossession,includingconsiderationofadditionaldisposaloptionsthatarenowavailableandretentionperiods.

Page104


Section 10Other Issues



Page105


Other Issues10.1 Ban on Fox and deer/stag hunting

DARDhasresponsibilityfortheWelfareofAnimalsAct2011(the2011Act),butitsresponsibilitiestowardsanimalsinthewildareverylimitedanddonotincludeanycontrolsoverthehunting,ortaking,ofwildanimalsandbirds,orpowersofentryfortheirprotection.

DARDhasnopowerstoregulate,orbanhuntingorcoursingwithdogs.Section53ofthe2011Actspecificallyexemptsfromitsprovisionsthecoursingorhuntingofanyanimal,otherthanaprotectedanimal,exceptundercertaincircumstancessuchastheanimalbeingreleasedinaninjuredstateorintoaconfinedspacefromwhichithasnoreasonablechanceofescape.

TheDepartmentofEnvironmenthasresponsibilityfortheWildlife(NI)Order1985althoughagainthatdoesnotincludepowerstobanhunting.

Anybanonhuntingwouldrequireadditionalpowerstobetakeninprimarylegislation.

10.2 Ban on greyhound racing and introduction of welfare legislation relating specifically to greyhounds.

GreyhoundracingisgovernedbytheNorthernIrelandRacingRegulationsandtheGreyhoundTrainerRegulationsaspromulgatedbytheIrishCoursingClub.

AlthoughtheDepartmentforSocialDevelopmentisresponsibleforthelicensingofdogtracksforthepurposeofbetting,noGovernmentDepartmenthaspolicyresponsibilityongreyhoundracing.

The2011Actprovideslegalprotectionforallanimalsfrominjuryandunnecessarysufferingandthatincludesgreyhounds.

Theprovisionsofthe2011Act,theDogsOrder1983andtheDogs(LicensingandIdentification)Regulations(NI)2012applytogreyhoundsinthesamewayastheyapplytoallotherdogs.

TheReviewisawarethatlastyeartheDepartmentoftheEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs(Defra)commencedoneofitsstandardfive-yearlegislationreviewsoftheGreyhoundRegulations,whichfocusesontheconditionsatgreyhoundracingtracks.Theevidencegatheringofthisreviewhasincludedtalkingwiththeorganisersattheracingtracks,vets,re-homingcentresetctofindouthowtheRegulationshavebeenworking.Thereviewconsultationclosedon31December2015.TheEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairsCommitteehasalsoestablishedasub-committeetoconductashortinquiryintothewelfareofracinggreyhounds.ThisinquirywillfeedintotheDefrareview.However,regardingtheissueofwelfare,DefrahasstatedthattheirWelfareofAnimalsActprovidesprotectionforgreyhoundsasitdoesforotheranimals,(likethe2011Actdoeshere).Itis

Page106


recommendedthatDARDmonitorsthefindingsandanyproposalsoftheDefrareviewinrelationtoanimalwelfare.PublicationoftheDefrafindingsisexpectedlaterthisyear.

10.3 Banning of tail docking in lambs.

TheissuessurroundingthetaildockingoflambswerediscussedwhentheWelfareofAnimals(PermittedProceduresbyLayPerson)Regulationswereupdatedfollowingtheintroductionofthe2011Act.

TheWelfareofAnimals(PermittedProceduresbyLayPerson)Regulations(NI)2012allowsthetaildockingoflambsbyalaypersonprovidedenoughofthetailisretainedtocoverthevulvaofafemaleanimalortheanusofamaleanimal.Theapplicationofarubberringorotherdevicetoconstricttheflowofbloodtothetailmayonlybeusedonananimalagednotmorethansevendays.Othermeans,suchasahotdockingironmayonlybeusedbeforetheageofthreemonths.

TheFarmedAnimalWelfareCodeofPracticeforsheepstatesthatstock-keepersshouldconsidercarefullywhethertaildockingwithinaparticularflockisnecessary.Taildockingmaybecarriedoutonlyiffailuretodosowouldleadtosubsequentwelfareproblemsbecauseofdirtytailsandpotentialflystrike.

Alaypersonisdefinedasapersonwhohasreceivedinstructionorwhoisotherwiseexperiencedintheperformanceofthatprocedure.

TheReviewiscontentthatthecurrentguidanceavailabletoflockownerstakesaccountofwelfareconsiderationsandmakesnorecommendationinthisarea.

10.4 Ban on the use of shock collars and prong collars

Useofshockcollarsiscurrentlypermittedaslongastheirusedoesnotcauseunnecessarysuffering.Section4ofthe2011Actplacesadutyofcareonownersandthoseresponsibleforananimaltoprotectthoseanimalsfromunnecessarysuffering.Contraventionofthisprovisionofthe2011Actcanleadtoapenaltywhichiscurrentlyuptotwoyearsimprisonmentand/oranunlimitedfinealthoughthisisduetoincreasetofiveyearsimprisonmentfollowingintroductionofthechangescontainedintheJustice(No2)Bill.

Recentresearchintotheuseofshockcollarshasindicatedthatwherepunishmentisused,itmustbeaverseenoughtocreateanegativeemotionalresponse.However,somewouldargueagainstthisapproachonthebasisthatthereisnowayofknowinginadvancehowintensetheinitialpunishmentshouldbeforeachindividualanimal.Manyprofessionalbehaviouralcliniciansdonotadvocatetheuseofanyformofaversivestimulibydogowners.

Shockcollarsarefreelyavailabletothegeneralpublicandaresoldwithminimalinstruction.Astheirhumaneuserequiresahighlyskilleduser,someauthorsargueforalicensingsystem,torestricttheuseofelectroniccollarstoexperiencedtrainersandtherebyminimisethepotentialforincorrectuse.

Page107


TheuseofshockcollarsiskeptunderconstantreviewbyDARDandanyplanstointroduceabanwouldbethesubjectofpublicconsultationandsubordinatelegislation.Itwouldappearthatscientificevidenceforthesafetyandefficacyofshockcollarsismixedandso,onthatbasisandgiventhestrongpenaltiesavailableifwelfareiscompromised,theReviewiscontentwithDARD’sapproach.

10.5 Ban on the use of snares and cage traps for foxes.

TheuseofsnaresinNorthernIrelandisregulatedbytheWildlife(NorthernIreland)Order1985(the1985Order).The1985OrderwasamendedbytheWildlifeandNaturalEnvironmentAct(NI)2011(WANE)whichintroducednewcontrolsovertheuseofsnaresinNorthernIreland.

DuringthepassageoftheWANEBillthroughtheNorthernIrelandAssemblytherewasdebateonwhetherornottheuseofsnaresshouldcontinuetobepermitted,duetoconcernsaboutthewelfareofanimalscaughtbysnares.Thosewhosupportedtheircontinueduseconsideredthatacompletebanwouldhavenegativeimplicationsforcountrysidemanagementpracticessuchasfarming,gamemanagementorreducingpressureongroundnestingbirdspecies.

Subsequently,theAssemblydecidedthatsnaresshouldremainalegalmeansofcapturingpestanimalspecies.

10.6 Dedicated hotline for charities to report cases of cruelty to the Council or access to Animal Welfare Officer’s mobile numbers.

Councilshavecurrentlyfivedirectlinesdedicatedtoanimalwelfareenforcementandcallsforanyareacanbetakenbycallhandlers.ForsafetyreasonsitisnotpossibletogiveoutmobilenumbersofstaffbutcallhandlerscaneasilycontactAnimalWelfareOfficerswithanyissuesraisedinrelationtoanimalwelfareenforcement.Councilsalsohaveasinglenumberforanemergencyout-of-hoursservice,whichisprovidedontheansweringservicemessageoutsidenormalofficehours.

TheReviewiscontentwiththisapproach.

10.7 Establishment of a quality assurance committee to oversee animal welfare enforcement.

Giventherecommendation(recommendation25)forthethreeenforcementbodiestomeetregularlytodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actandsharebestpracticeandlessonslearnt,theReviewfeelsthatafurthercommitteeisunnecessaryatthistime.

10.8 Some stakeholders felt that financial support should be provided to animal charities as it is in the Republic of Ireland.

DARDprovidesfundingtoCouncilstofacilitatetheirenforcementofthe2011Act.SuchfundingcannotbeusedbyCouncilstofundcharitiesoranyotherorganisationunlessthat

Page108


charityororganisationiscontractedtotheCouncilstodeliveraserviceunderthe2011Act.WhileweareawarethatanimalcharitiesreceiveGovernmentsupportintheRepublicofIreland,thisisnotthecaseinGreatBritain.

AnyfundingarrangementsinNorthernIrelandwouldhavetobeinlinewithDepartmentofFinanceandPersonnel(DFP)guidelinesonManagingPublicMoneyandfeasibilitywouldhavetobeconsideredinlightofspecificproposals.

GivencurrentbudgetarypressureonGovernmentDepartmentstheReviewiscontentthatDARDcontinuestoprioritisefundingtoexistingenforcementbodies.

10.9 Dog licences to be granted subject to the fulfilment of the ‘five needs’ and not automatically.

DogsarelicensedunderTheDogs(NI)Order1983whichlaysdowntheconditionswhichmustbemetbeforealicencecanbeissued.

Thepurposeofdoglicensingandmicrochippingistoensurethatstraydogscanbere-unitedwiththeirowners.TheDogs(LicensingandIdentification)Regulations(NI)2012,setouttheformatoftheLicenceApplicationatSchedule1.

RequiringprospectivedogownerstodemonstratethattheycanfulfilthefiveneedsofadogbeforealicenceisissuedwouldplaceadditionalburdensonCouncilEnforcementOfficersandaddsignificantlytothecostofadoglicence.Ifthecostoflicencesisraisedtosuchanextentthatdogsarenolongerbeinglicensed,thismayleadtomoreunidentifiedstraydogsandmoredogshavingtobehumanelydestroyed.

WheretheneedsofadogarenotbeingmetaCouncilAWOcantakeappropriateenforcementactionunderthe2011Act.

OnbalancetheReviewconsiderthecurrentsystemtobeeffectivebutrecognisestheimportanceofeducatingthepublicinrelationtotheirresponsibilitytowardsanimalsintheircare.TheCouncils’DogAdvisoryGrouphasindicatedthattheyintendtoincorporateinformationaboutthe‘fivefreedoms’intotheirlicensingprocedureinwhateverformatanindividualCouncilseeappropriate.OneCouncilhasalreadyimplementedthisapproach.TheReviewconsidersthistobeausefuldevelopment.

10.10 Farmed and non-farmed animals be categorised together.

The2011Actalignswelfarestandardsforfarmedanimals,whichhavegenerallybeenkeptinlinewithdevelopmentsinscientificunderstanding,andnon-farmedanimalswhichhadbeenpreviouslyprotectedbylawswhichwerealmostfortyyearsold.

Whiletheenforcementofthelegislationisseparatedbetweenfarmed(DARD)andnon-farmed(Councils)animals,theprotectionaffordedisthesame.

Astheenvironmentinwhichfarmedandnon-farmedanimalsdifferstheReviewfoundthatthecurrentsplitinenforcementfunctionisappropriate.

Page109


10.11 Some stakeholders suggested banning the keeping of animals on land owned by individuals who had been convicted of an animal welfare offence.

TheReviewconsideredthelegislationrequiredtobringsuchabanintooperation,aswellastheenforcementandimplicationsofsuchaban.TheReviewacknowledgesthatmanyfarmersrentlandforagriculturaluseandthattakinglandinconacreisapopularpracticeacrossNorthernIreland.Apotentialbanonanimalsbeingkeptonlandownedbyindividualsconvictedofananimalwelfareoffencewouldhaveadisproportionatecommercialeffectontheoffenderasitwouldmeantheycouldnotearnmoneyonthelandtheyownbyrentingitout.Abanwouldalsocausedifficultiesforinnocentfarmerswhohadneverbeenconvictedofanoffenceasitwouldreducetheamountoflandavailabletorentandcouldcausefarmmanagementdifficulties.Suchabancouldalsoleadtoadditionalhassleforinnocentfarmerswhomayhavetomovetheiranimalsaftertheindividualtheyarerentinglandfromisconvictedofananimalwelfareoffence.

TheReviewacknowledgesthatthissuggestioncomesfromstakeholderconcernsaroundthepotentialforindividualswhoaredisqualifiedtocontinuetokeepanimals.However,theReviewconsidersthattheprocessescurrentlyinplacetocheckdisqualificationorders(seesection3.4forfarmedanimals)andtherecommendationsmadebythisReportaresufficienttoensurethatdisqualifiedkeepersareidentifiedandtheDisqualificationOrderisenforced.

Page110


Section 11Related Issues



Page111


Related IssuesDuringstakeholderengagementsomeissueswereraisedthatfalloutsidetheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011(the2011Act).ThesehavebeenconsideredbytherelevantBranchwithinDARDandapreliminaryresponsegiven.

11.1 Some stakeholders said that earned recognition should be used to reduce the likelihood of being selected for DARD inspections (e.g. membership of Farm Quality Assurance Scheme (FQAS)).

Theconceptof“earnedrecognition”wasconsideredbyVeterinaryServicein2013whentheVeterinaryServiceEpidemiologyunitproducedareportthatlookedattheissueofoverallcompliancebyFQASmembers.Thereportdidnotprovideevidencetosupporttheintroductionofearnedrecognitionasaselectioncriterionforcrosscomplianceriskselection.Thereisnoexplicitlystated“specialrecognition”schemeusedintheselectioncriteriaforCross-ComplianceinspectionsinNorthernIreland,however,inpracticethesystemusedinregardtoanimalwelfareacknowledgesthefactthatagoodtrackrecordshouldmeanlesschanceofaninspection.

Thepreferredoptionistomaintainthecurrentarrangementforcross-complianceselectionweightingsbecausethissupportsDARDsstatedenforcementpolicytodirectitsfocusonthoseindividualsorbusinessesthatpersistentlybreachstatutorystandards.Thecurrentselectionsysteminplacealreadyensuresthatanyfarmbusiness,includingFQASmembers,withfewerwelfareinfringementsislesslikelytobeselectedinsubsequentyears.

11.2 Some stakeholders asked that attention be given to the impact on farm animal welfare caused by the financial effect on keepers of both Cross-Compliance penalties and Tuberculosis (TB) restrictions.

EachherdkeeperwhohasaTBbreakdownwillbecontactedbytheirlocalVeterinaryOfficer(VO).TheVOwilltrytoansweranyqueriesanddiscussanypossiblesolutions.

TheremaybeconcernsthataTBbreakdownhasputextrapressureonafarmbusiness,forexampleduetooverstockingorcashflowissues.Ifthereareseriousfarmmanagementproblems,aherdkeepermayfeelthatsellingstocktoanotherfarmisvital.However,movementofanimalsoutofaTBherdtoanotherherdrepresentsadiseaserisk.Therefore,suchliveanimalmovementouttoanotherfarmisnotroutine.TheVOcanexplaintheexceptionalcircumstancesunderwhichanimalsmaybeallowedtobemovedoutofTBrestrictedherds.Animalmovementsareonlypermittedoutofherdswherefarmmanagementdifficultiesarelikelytobecomepronounced,oranimalwelfareissuesarelikelytodevelop,anditisnotpossibletoovercometheseproblemsinanyotherway.Suchmovementwillusuallyresultinherdsbecoming“associated”,meaningthatdiseasecontrols,suchasrestrictionsandenhancedtesting,bothtotherecipientherdandanylocalherdsplacedatadditionalrisk,willapply.

Page112


Underseverewinterweatherconditions,thereisaspecialprotocolforanimalmovementthatmaybeactivatedbyVeterinaryService.Movementisonlypermittedinexceptionalcircumstancesanddoesnotrequireherdassociationbutwillrequirerestrictionofthereceivingherd,andusuallyanincreasedlevelofherdtestinginthereceivingherd.

AllherdkeeperswithaTBbreakdownwillreceivecontactdetailsforDARDstaffandforotherorganisationsthatmaybeabletohelpifafarmerisunderpressure.

11.3 Some stakeholders suggested that licensing of cat breeders is needed.

TherearenolegislativerequirementsinGBorIrelandregardingthelicensingofcatbreeders.CatteriesarelicensedbyDARDundertheAnimalBoardingEstablishmentsRegulations(NI)1974.Theissueoflicensingofcatbreederswasincludedinthe2006consultationontheWelfareofAnimalsBill.However,therewasnopublicappetiteforthis.The2011Actprovidesgeneralpowerswhichcanbeusedtoaddressanywelfareissueswhichmayariseinrelationtocatbreeding.

11.4 Some stakeholders suggested that cat licensing is needed, similar to dog licensing (possibly limited to cat breeding stock and their kittens).

CatteriesarelicensedbyDARDundertheAnimalBoardingEstablishmentsRegulations(NI)1974.Untilrecentlytherehadbeennorequeststoconsiderthelicensingofcats,andfeedbackreceivedontheissuefrompreviouspublicconsultationshasnotreflectedaneedforthisuntilthiscurrentReview.Giventhepracticaldifficultiesofintroducingandenforcingsucharequirement,DARDneedstoprioritiseotherwelfareissuesatthistime.

11.5 Some stakeholders said that the dog licensing system needs to be enforced, including updating of the microchip databases with owner details.

DoglicensinghereisenforcedbytheCouncils’DogWardenservice.Statisticaldatashowsthatover135,000doglicenceswereissuedbyCouncilsduring2014.DogWardensalsoissued2,733fixedpenaltynoticestopersonswhohadadogwithoutaCouncil-issueddoglicence.Inaddition,therewereafurther445successfulprosecutionsduring2014fornothavingavaliddoglicence.

OneofthepointsraisedduringstakeholderdiscussionsessionsandbyCouncilsduringtheconsultationonamendingTheDogs(LicensingandIdentification)Regulations(NI)2012toremovetheneedforcolouredcollartags,wasthatsomedogownerswerenotupdatingtheircontactdetailsonmicrochipdatabases,forexample,whentheychangedaddress.Ifthedetailsareinaccurate,thedogisnotconsideredmicrochippedundertheDogs(LicensingandIdentification)Regulations(NI)2012andthelicenceisvoid.Toaddressthisissue,DARDhasmadeaminoramendmenttoaddclaritytotheRegulations.ThisdoesnotchangehowdogownerslicencetheirdogsortheroleofCouncilEnforcementOfficers.Theamendmentmadetherequirementtoupdatethemicrochipdatabasemoreexplicitandcameintoforcefrom1January2015.

Page113


11.6 Some stakeholders commented on apparent inconsistency of approach by DARD VS during inspections in meat plant lairages.

ThroughouttheEUthewelfareofanimalsduringtransportisgovernedbyCouncilRegulation(EC)1/2005whichisadministeredandenforcedherethroughTheWelfareofAnimals(Transport)Regulations(NI)2006.Whilstthe2011Actalsoappliestoanimalsduringtransport,thespecificprovisionsoftheEURegulationgivebettergroundsforappropriateenforcement.

Thewelfareofanimalstransportedtomeatplantlairagesisprotectedthroughenforcementofthetransportregulations.FoodbusinessoperatorsarerequiredtonotifyDARDif/whenananimalarriveswiththeminanunsatisfactorystatewithregardtowelfare.Inaddition,DARDvetsinmeatplantsinspectallanimalspriortoslaughterandoccasionallyidentifyanimalswhichshouldnothavebeentransported.ThesevetshavebeentrainedintheenforcementoftheRegulationsandrefreshertrainingwaslastprovidedinSeptember2014.

Page114


Annexes Annex A Recommendationsassignedtorelevantbodies

Annex B Alistofsecondarylegislationmadeunderthe2011ActandCodesofPracticeforfarmed/non-farmedanimals

Annex C TermsofReferencefortheReview

Annex D ListofStakeholdersinvitedtodiscussionsessionsandrespondentstotheconsultationontheInterimreport.

Page115


Annex AEmerging Recommendations Assigned to Relevant Bodies

Theme Recommendation Number

Recommendation Responsibility

Sentencing 1 DARDconsidersincreasingpenaltiesforanimalwelfareoffencesasfollows:

•Summary Offences–Increasethemaximumpenaltyonsummaryconvictionfortheoffencesofcausing unnecessary suffering(section4)andanimal fighting(sections8(1)&8(2))totwelvemonthsimprisonment,afinenotexceeding£20,000,orboth.


Thefollowingsummaryonlyoffencesareamendedtomakethemhybrid,whichwillallowthemostseriouscasestobeheardintheCrownCourt:-

•Knowinglysupplying,publishing,showingorpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight;

•Breachingadisqualificationorder;and,

•Sellingorpartingwithananimalpendingtheoutcomeofanappealtoadeprivationorder.

Therangeofancillarypost-convictionpowersavailabletothecourtsfollowingconvictionforanimalfightingoffencesareextendedtobeavailablefollowingaconvictionforsupplying,publishing,showingorpossessingwithintenttosupplyphotographs,imagesorvideoofananimalfight.Thiswould,forexample,givecourtsthepowertoconfiscateananimalfromanownerconvictedofsupplyingimagesorvideoofananimalfight,andtodisqualifysuchpersonsfromowningorkeepinganimals.

DARD/DOJ

Page116




Sentencing 2 DOJtoconsideraddingthefollowinghybridoffencestotheUndulyLenientSentencingScheme(whichwouldapplyincircumstanceswherethesecasesareheardbeforetheCrownCourt):-

1)Unnecessarysuffering(section4),and

2)Causing/Attendingananimalfight(sections8(1)and8(2)).

DOJ

3 DOJtowritetotheLordChiefJusticetosharethedetailoftheproposedincreasetothemaximumpenaltiesasthismayimpactonexistingsentencingguidelines.ConsiderationshouldalsobegiventogivingDARDandlocalCouncilsanopportunitytoprovidetheJudicialStudiesBoardwithbackgroundabouttheirenforcementroles.

DOJ

Delivery Structures – Farmed Animals

4 DARDVSreviewperformancestandardsaspartofthepost-implementationreviewoftheanimalwelfareenhancementstoAPHIS.

DARD

5 DARDVSmonitorthelevelandoutcomeofanonymousandvexatiouscallsandifnecessaryreviewtheirprocedures.Inaddition,theyshouldconsiderreportingthenumberofanonymousandvexatiouscallsintheannualreport.

DARD

6 DARDVScontinuetoreviewpolicies,procedures,standardformsandguidanceasandwhentheneedarises(e.g.changesinlegislation,reviewofbestpracticeinacase).

DARD

7 DARDVSincorporatelessonslearnedfromcasereviewsinstafftrainingintheimplementationandenforcementoftheappropriatelegislation.

DARD

8 DARDVStocontinuewiththecurrentarrangementofmonitoringtheeffectivenessofcall-handlingand,ifanyproblemsaredetected,provideadditionaltraining.

DARD

Page117




Delivery Structures

- Non Farmed Animals

9 CouncilscontinuetoreporttotheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardonachievementofthetargetssetoutintheirCallPrioritisationpolicyandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoardshouldcontinuetomonitorandreviewperformanceandresponsetimetargets.

Councils

10 Councilscontinuetoreviewthevolumeofwork,budgetandspendonaquarterlybasisandcontinuetoseektocreateefficiencies,wherepossibleand,inconjunctionwithDARDandtheAnimalWelfareProjectBoard,continuetoreviewtherequiredleveloffundingforenforcementofthenon-farmedanimalwelfareservice.

Councils/DARD

11 ChiefExecutivesoftheelevennewCouncilsshouldconsidertheinformationprovidedtothembytheReviewwhenmakingdecisionsabouttheoperatingmodelforthedeliveryoftheanimalwelfareservice.

Councils

12 CouncilsadviseDARDassoonaspossibleofthestructuresinrelationtotheanimalwelfareservicepostLGRtoinformdecisionsinrelationtobudgetplanning.

Councils

13 EachCounciladoptsaconsistentapproachinrelationtodelegatingthepowertoinstigatelegalproceedings.

Councils

14 Councilsbuildintofuturetraining,guidanceandpracticetheexperiencegainedfromon-goinginvestigationsandlegalcases.

Councils

15 CouncilsprovideguidancetoAWOsinrelationtooffendingbychildrenandyoungpeople.

Councils

16 Councilsprovidespecifictrainingondealingwithvulnerableadults.

Councils

Page118




Delivery Structures

- Non Farmed Animals

17 CouncilstoformalisetheprocedureswhicharecurrentlyindraftformforAWOsandcontinuetoundertakeroutineperiodicreviewofpolicies,procedures,standardformsandguidancedocumentsasgoodpractice,addressproceduralgapsandperiodicallyconductconsistencyaudits.

Councils

Delivery Structures

- Wild Animals

18 ThePSNIobtaininputfromCouncilAWOstotrainingfornewofficersandcallhandlers;andupdateandregularlyreviewguidanceonthePSNIintranetsiteforoperationalofficerstoincludecommonoffences/incidents.

PSNI

19 ThePSNImakeinformationavailableforcallhandlersontheinvestigativeresponsibilitiesofPSNI,DARDandCouncilsforanimalwelfareissues,andtoincludecontactdetailsofrelevantagenciesshouldthematterneedreferredtoanotherbody.

PSNI

20 ThePSNIcontinuetheircurrentenforcementpolicythatalloffencesunderthe2011ActinvestigatedbythePSNIarereportedtoPPSfordirection.

PSNI

21 ThePSNIprovideoperationalofficerswithguidancethatcanbeaccessedwhenoutonpatrol,advisingonanimalwelfareresponsibilitiesofeachofthethreeenforcementbodies(PSNI,DARD,Council)andfocusingonthecommonanimalwelfareoffencespoliceofficersarelikelytoinvestigatei.e.animalfighting,horsesonroads.

PSNI

22 ThePSNIinvestigatingofficer,uponsecuringaDisqualificationOrder,shouldforwarddetailstotheWildlifeLiaisonOfficerandlocalpolicingteam.Theinformationshouldalsobeplacedandflaggedontheircomputersystem.TheOrdershouldbeformallymonitoredatleasttwiceayearandevidenceofmonitoringshouldbeenteredontheircomputerforauditpurposes.

DARD,CouncilsandPSNI

Page119




Working Together

23 ThedraftMOUbetweenthethreeenforcementbodiesandthecurrentMOUsbetweenDARDandCouncilsbeupdatedtoreflecttheoutcomeofthisReviewandthenewstructuresadoptedbyCouncilsfollowingLGR.


24 Thethreeenforcementbodiesestablishprotocolsforworkingtogetherincertainsituationsi.e.abandonedhorsesandmissingpets.


25 Thethreeenforcementbodiesmeetregularlytodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actandtosharebestpracticeandlessonslearnedfromspecificinvestigations,NICTSshouldbeinvitedwhenrequired.


26 ThethreeenforcementbodiesdeveloptemplatesforDisposal,DeprivationandDisqualificationOrdersforusebyprosecutors.


27 DARD,inconjunctionwithDOJ,progressitsapplicationforaccesstotheCRVandinvestigateoptionsregardingsharingrelevantconvictiondatawithCouncils.

DARD/DOJ

28 DARD,withDOJsupport,arrangeaneventbringinganimalre-homingorganisationstogethertosharebestpracticeanddiscussstepsthatcanbetakentoensurethesuitabilityofindividualsapplyingtore-homeananimal.

DARD/DOJ

29 Councilscontinuetoworkwithorganisationsthatareinapositiontotakeownershipofanimalswhichmaybere-homedasaresultofDisposalOrdersgrantedbytheCourtspendingconsiderationofalicensingsystemforsuchorganisations.

Councils

30 DARDconsiderslicensingofanimalsanctuaries,re-homingorganisationsanddogpounds.

DARD

Page120




Working Together

31 EnforcementBodiesmakeguidanceavailableonhowthepublicandanimalwelfareorganisationsshoulddealwithananimalwelfareincident.


32 Councilstomeetannuallywithkeyanimalwelfarerepresentativegroupstodiscussenforcementofthe2011Actasregardsnon-farmedanimals.

Councils

33 CouncilsmeetwiththeircounterpartsintheRepublicofIrelandonanannualbasisormorefrequentlyifrequired,todiscussissuesofjointinterest.

Councils

34 CouncilsworkwithcatwelfareorganisationstoproduceguidanceforusebyAWOsindeterminingwhencatsareofaferalkind.

Councils

Serving The Public

35 DARDestablishasingleanimalwelfarewebpresencetobringtogetherinformationfromallenforcementbodies,informingthegeneralpublicoftheneedsofanimals,theresponsibilitiesofowners,andthepotentialforcriminalproceedings.

DARD

36 DARDprovideaseriesof‘quick-guides’toexplainthelegalresponsibilitiesofanimalownersandtheenforcementarrangements.

DARD

37 Anawarenesscampaignbeundertakentoincreasepublicawarenessofwhotocontactiftheyareconcernedaboutthewelfareofanimals.


38 Enforcementbodiesrevise,updateandenhancesourcesofinformationonanimalwelfare,includingprovisionofguidance,leafletsandCoPandlinksonCouncilwebsitesandensurethattheCoPfornon-farmedanimalsshouldbepublicised.


39 Enforcementbodiescontinuetoencouragethepublictoreportinformationthatmightindicateawelfareconcernandconsiderhowsuchinformationisgathered,analysedandactedupontoseeifanyimprovementsarepossible.


Page121




Serving the Public

40 DARDprovideanannualreportsettingoutinformationrelevanttothepublicinrelationtotheanimalwelfareserviceprovidedbyeachofthethreeenforcementbodies.

DARD

41 EnforcementbodiesshouldworkwiththeirrespectivemediaservicestoreviewPressReleases(includingcontent,recipientsandtiming)tomaximiseuptake.PressReleasesshouldalsobepublishedonthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.


42 EnforcementbodiesincludeastandardlineinPressReleasestoinformthepublichowtoreportananimalwelfareconcernandprovidealinktotheanimalwelfarewebpresence


43 OfficialsinDARDandDEtomeettodiscusshowtheymighthighlightanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschools.

DARD,DE

44 Enforcementbodiesprovidebriefingmaterialonthe2011Act,includingonthewelfareneedsofanimalstomediaoutlets,whichshouldbeupdatedregularly.


45 CouncilsappropriatelypublishcomplaintsprocedureswhenestablishedwithinthenewCouncilssothattheyarereadilyaccessibletoanimalwelfarestakeholdersandmembersofthepublic.

Councils


46 GuidelinesshouldberevisedtorequireCouncilEnforcementOfficerstoverifyimplementationofsocialisation,enhancementandenrichmentprogrammesduringinspectionsandthisrequirementtobewrittenintotheRegulationsattheearliestpossibleopportunity.

DARD

47 CouncilsshoulddrawupaprotocolforriskbasedunannouncedinspectionstoensureconsistencyacrossallCouncilareas.

Councils

Page122





48 DARDandCouncilstocarryoutareviewoflicencefeesfordogbreedingestablishments.ThisshouldbeonthebasisoffullcostrecoveryofcoststotheCouncilsandshouldtakeintoaccounttheneed,onoccasions,formultipleinspectionsofdogbreedingestablishments.Toensureconsistencyofapproach,thisreviewofthelicencefeeshouldbecarriedoutintandemtoaforthcomingreviewofthelegislationforPetshops,AnimalBoardingandRidingEstablishmentsandZooswhichwillalsocoverinspectionactivitiesandfees.

DARD,Councils

49 TheGuidanceforCouncilEnforcementOfficersissuedbytheDARDtoCouncilsshouldbereviewed,inconjunctionwithCouncils,byDARDandstrengthened.ThisstrengthenedguidanceshouldbemadeavailabletoDogBreedersandmembersofthepublicviathesingleanimalwebpresence.

DARD,Councils

50 DARDreviewsguidanceforworkareassuchasNewOwnersGuideforanimalboardingestablishmentstoensureaconsistentapproachisadopted.

DARD,NIDAG

51 Councilsfinalisetrainingrequirements,followingtheoutcomeofthisReview,sothatanyrelevantareascanbeaddressedaspartofanaccreditedcourse.

Councils

52 DARDshouldmonitortheimplementationofstafftodogratioconditionsbylocalauthoritiesinWaleswithaviewtoconsideringthisoptioninthefuture.

DARD

53 DARDtoamendlegislationtoallowthedetailscontainedwithinCouncilheldregistersofLicensedDogBreedingEstablishmentstobemadeavailabletothepublicandonthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

DARD

Page123





54 DARDandDAFMtoincludedogbreedingandthemovementofdogsasastandingitematmeetingsoftheNorthSouthAnimalWelfareandTransportWorkingGroup,tofacilitatethesharingofinformation,intelligence,bestpracticeandlessonslearned.

DARD

55 TheconditionsrequiredforobtainingadogbreedinglicenceshouldbemadeavailableonCouncilwebsites,andthesingleanimalwelfarewebpresence.

DARD,Councils

56 DARDinconjunctionwithDEtoconsiderincludingbuyingandcaringforapupinanyanimalwelfareeducationalawarenessprogrammesinschoolsarisingfromtheimplementationofRecommendation44;andincluderelevantlinks/guidanceonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresence.

DARD,DE

57 DARDtoformaliseitslinkswithPAAGandIPAAGandworkwiththeseorganisationstopromotebetterselfregulationofonlinesitesadvertisingpets.

DARD

58 DARDandCouncilsshouldraiseawarenessofthelegislationavailable,andtherelevantenforcementbodies,thatthepublichaverecoursetobytheinclusionofrelevantlinks/guidanceonthenewanimalwelfarewebpresence.

DARD,Councils

59 DARDincludestheissueofthesellingpetsfromallpremisesaspartofitsconsultationwhenreviewingandrevisingthelegislationrelatingtopetshops,ridingandanimalboardingestablishments.

DARD

Equines 60 ThelegislativerequirementfortheregistrationofpremiseswhereequinesarekepttobereviewedbasedontheReviewfeedback,andwhenfurtherinformationisavailableonwhat,ifany,requirementsmaybeincludedinthenewEUAHRs.

DARD

Page124




Equines 61 TheEquineCoordinationWorkingGrouptodevelopamultiagencycommunicationstrategytodisseminaterelevantstatutoryandindustrymessages.

DARD

62 DARDtosupporttheBritishHorseSocietyintheirplannedSpring2016castrationclinichere.

DARD

63 TheReviewrecommendsthatDARDcontinuestomonitorthelevelofequinewelfareandabandonmentcasesandkeeptheneedforactionunderreview.ThisshouldincludecontinuingtoengagewithDAFMofficialsthroughtheNorthSouthAnimalWelfareandTransportWorkingGroup.

DARD

64 DARDseektoamendthe2011Acttoaddaclausetoenableanacceleratedprocessforthere-homingordisposalofabandoned,unidentifiedequines.

DARD

65 CouncilstocontinuetomonitortheongoingtraininganddevelopmentrequirementsofAnimalWelfareOfficersinrelationtoequinemanagementandwelfare.

Councils

66 DARDtohighlighttheconsequencesofanunidentifiedhorsebeingtakenintopossessiononwelfaregroundsinitsplannedCommunicationsstrategyinrelationtotheHorsePassportRegulations.

DARD

Page125




Equines 67 Inrelationtoabandonedequinesthatarenotmicrochippedandthereforetheirpreviousownershipcannotbeestablished,ensurethatanyDisposalOrderstatesthattheequinesarenotmicrochippedandownershipisuntraceable.Thisistoensurethatthecourtisawarethatitwillnotbepossibletoestablishanyownershipfortheseunidentifiedequines,inadditiontobeinginbreachoftheHorsePassportRegulations(note:onlyequinesbornafterJune2009requiremicrochip).

DARD

68 DFPtoreviewtheAnimalsOrder1976toreflectthecurrentlegislativerequirementsregardingtheelectronictraceabilityofanimalsandpassportingandthelimitedavailabilityofoutletstosellorauctionanimalsthathavebeentakenintopossession,includingconsiderationofadditionaldisposaloptionsthatarenowavailableandretentionperiods.

DFP

Page126


Annex BLegislationmadeunderWelfareofAnimalsAct(NI)2011

THEWELFAREOFANIMALS(PERMITTEDPROCEDURESBYLAYPERSONS)REGULATIONS(NI)2012No.153(asamendedbySR2012No.387)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisr/2012/153/contents/made

THEWELFAREOFFARMEDANIMALSREGULATIONS(NI)2012No.156(asamended:bySR2012No.387)


THEWELFAREOFANIMALS(DOCKINGOFWORKINGDOGS’TAILSANDMISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS)REGULATIONS(NI)2012No.387


THEWELFAREOFANIMALS(DOGBREEDINGESTABLISHMENTSANDMISCELLANEOUSAMENDMENTS)REGULATIONS(NI)2013No.43


Codes of Practice made under Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 2011 for farmed animals can be found at-

https://www.dardni.gov.uk/publications/codes-practice-farmed-animals

Codes of practice made under Welfare of Animal Act (NI) 2011 for non-farmed animal can be found at-

https://www.dardni.gov.uk/publications/codes-practice-non-farmed-animals

Page127


Annex CTerms of Reference

Review of the Implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act 2011

9 July 2014

Foralmost40years,themainprimarylegislationonanimalwelfarewassetoutintheWelfareofAnimalsAct1972.Itallowedintervention,andsubsequentprosecutionaction,onlyaftercrueltyorunnecessarysufferinghadoccurred.TheWelfareofAnimalsAct2011(the2011Act)introducedadutyofcareinrespectofall“protectedanimals”(i.e.animalsunderthecontrolofanypersonwhetherpermanentlyortemporarily)andprovidednewenforcementpowerstoallowactiontobetakentopreventanimalsfromsuffering,asopposedtowaitinguntilsufferinghasoccurred.

Underthe2011Act,manyoftheexistingpowersofenforcementthatexistedinthe1972Actremaininplace.TheDepartmentappointsinspectorstoimplementandenforcepowersinrespectoffarmedanimalsonagriculturalland.ThePSNIleadsinwelfareissuesinvolvingorganisedanimalfightingorwhereothercriminalactivitiesareinvolved.

The2011ActextendedtheexistingpowersofenforcementbymakingnewpowersavailabletoCouncilstoappointinspectorstoimplementandenforceprovisionsinrespectofnon-farmedanimals,includinghorses.

The2011Actincreasedthepenaltiesforseriousanimalwelfareoffences(toamaximum2yearsimprisonmentand/orunlimitedfine)andprovidesthesamelevelofprotectionfornon-farmedanimalsasexistsforfarmedanimals. Purpose of the Review

Therehasbeenconsiderablepolitical,mediaandpublicinterestintheenforcementoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct2011,particularlywithregardtonon-farmedanimals.Thereisalsoawidelyheldconcernaboutthesentencesimposedinarecenthigh-profilecase.

On31March2014,theAssemblydebatedandagreedaPrivateMember’sMotionasfollows-ThatthisAssemblynoteswithconcernthenumberofcasesofextremeanimalcrueltythathaveoccurredrecently,thelownumberofconvictionsandthefailuretoimposethemaximumsentenceavailable;andcallsontheMinisterofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment,inconjunctionwiththeMinisterofJustice,toinitiateareviewoftheimplementationofanimalcrueltylegislation,particularlysentencingguidelinesandpractices,toensurethatthemaximumeffectivenessisbeingbroughttobeartocombatthesecrimes.

Inresponsetothemotion,theDepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment(DARD)willestablishaReviewoftheimplementationoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct2011towhichthe

Page128


DepartmentofJustice(DOJ)willcontribute.Aninterimreportwillbepreparedby31November2014andafinalwrittenreport(supportedbyevidenceandrecommendationsasnecessary)byearly2015.ThefinalreportwillbemadetotheDARDMinisterwhowillcommunicate,totheMinisterofJustice,anyrecommendationswhichmayfallundertheresponsibilityofhisdepartment.

Review structure

TheReviewwillbeoverseenbyaSteeringGroupcomprisingofofficialsfromDARDandDOJ.ThisGroupwillprovidedirectionfortheReview,commissionworkinanumberofwork-streams,prepareaninterimandfinalreport,andprovideadvicetotheirrespectiveMinisters.

TheSteeringGroupwill:

•commissionanumberofDiscussionSessionsinordertotakeviewsontheimplementationofthe2011Actfromacross-sectionofstakeholders,includingwelfarecharities;

•setupWorkingGroupswhichwillconsidertheimplementationofthe2011Actacrossanumberofthemes,identifythescaleandrangeofissues,andexploreoptionsforimprovement/proposerecommendations,asappropriate;and

•establishaDeliveryBodyReferenceGroup(madeupofdeliverystakeholdersresponsiblefortheimplementationofthe2011Act)toprovideinputonoperationalissues,throughsupportingtheDiscussionSessionsandadvisingonthepracticalimplicationsofWorkingGroupfindings/recommendations.

Indicative Review themes

TheReviewwillconsidertheimplementationoftheWelfareofAnimalsAct2011underthefollowingthemes.

1. Sentencing-Thesentencingofthoseconvictedofanimalwelfareoffenceshasoftenattractedattentionfromthepublic,electedrepresentativesandthemedia.

TheReviewwillcompareacrosstheseislands:

• thesentencingoptionsinlegislationavailabletotheCourts;

• thesentencingguidelines;and

• thesentenceshandeddownforthoseconvictedundersimilaranimalwelfarelegislation.

2. Delivery Structures-AnimalWelfareenforcementforfarmedanimalsiscarriedoutbytheDepartment,whilethePSNIhasresponsibilityforwildanimals,animalfightingandwelfareissueswhereothercriminalactivitiesareinvolved.

AnimalWelfareenforcementinrespectofnon-farmedanimals,althoughfundedbytheDepartment,iscarriedoutbylocalCouncilsthrough5Groups.Itisrecognisedthatthe

Page129


implementationofLocalGovernmentReformandthemoveto11Councilswillrequirechangestothecurrentstructure.AsthefutureLocalGovernmentstructuresareamatterforCouncilsandremaintobeconfirmed,anyrecommendationsinthisReviewwillbebasedprimarilyonthecurrentarrangements.CouncilsmaywishtodrawupontheemergingfindingsofthisReviewwhendevelopingthosefuturedeliveryarrangements.

TheReviewwillexamine:

• thecurrentmanagement,administrative(includingcasepreparation)andenforcementarrangements;

• existingimplementationpolicies;

• theuseofresources;and

• arrangementsfortraininganddevelopment.

3. Working Together (facilitating enforcement)-Successfulprogressofacasefrominitialreferral,throughinvestigation,to(possible)prosecutionrequireseffectiveworkingbothwithinandbetweenseveralagencies.

Havingregardtorecentexamplesascasestudies,theReviewwillexaminehowthefollowingworktogether:• Councils,theDepartmentandthePSNI;

• enforcementbodies,theirlegalteams/thePPSandtheNorthernIrelandCourtsandTribunalsService;and

• Councilswithanimalcharities,rescuegroupsetc.

• TheReviewwillalso:

• consideraccesstoconvictiondataforenforcementorganisations,otherthanthePSNI;and

• examinecross-borderrelationshipsbetweenenforcementbodies.

4.Serving the Public-Itisessentialthatmembersofthepublicareawareofwhotocontactshouldtheyneedtoreportananimalwelfareincident.Itisalsoimportanttoletthepublicknowwhetherthe2011Actisbeingeffectivelyimplemented.

TheReviewwillexamine:• thepublicfacingmaterial,itsprominence,andmethodsusedinpublicisinganimal

welfareenforcement;

• complaintsprocedures;and

• thearrangementsinplacetoinformthepublicoftheeffectivenessofanimalwelfareenforcementintermsofcasesinvestigated,prosecutedetc.

Page130


Annex DStakeholders invited to discussions on the Review of the Implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act (NI) 2011 - summer 2014*Invitedbutunabletosendrepresentativeordidnotrespond

7thHeavenAnimalRescueTrustAlmostHomeRescueNI

AnimalEthicsAdvisoryGroup*

AssisiAnimalSanctuary

BallysaggartEnvironmentalGroupBrightEyesAnimalSanctuary

BritishAssociationforShootingandConservationinNorthernIreland(BASCNI)

BritishHorseSociety

BritishVeterinaryAssociation(BVA)

CatSupportGroup

CatsProtection

CausewayCoastDogRescueCompassioninWorldFarming(CIWF)*

CountrysideAllianceIrelandCrosskennan

DairyUKNorthernIrelandDogsTrust

DonkeySanctuary

EquineCouncilforNorthernIreland(ECNI)

FarmersforAction

GrovehillAnimalTrust

IrishHorseBoard*

IrishWorkingTerrierFederation

LeagueAgainstCruelSports

LivestockandMeatCommission(LMC)*

Lucy’sTrust

Mid-AntrimAnimalSanctuary

Page131


NationalBeefAssociation

NationalSheepAssociation*

NIHorseBoard(PIO)

NorthernIrelandAgriculturalProducersAssociation(NIAPA)

NorthernIrelandProvincialAmalgamationofRacingPigeons(NIPA)*

NorthernIrelandSaysNotoAnimalCruelty(NISNTAC)

NuttsCornerBoardingKennelsPetIndustryFederation*

PigReGenLtd

RoyalCollegeofVeterinarySurgeons(RCVS)*

RSPBNI*

RuralSupport

TheAssociationofVeterinarySurgeonsPractisinginNorthernIreland(AVSPNI)

TheBlueCross*

TheKennelClub

TheNorthofIrelandVeterinaryAssociation(NIVA)

TheRainbowRehomingCentre

TheSocietyofGreyhoundVeterinarians*

TheUlsterSocietyforPreventionofCrueltytoAnimals(USPCA)

UlsterFarmersUnion(UFU)

UlsterPorkandBaconForum*

UlsterWildlifeTrust*

YoungFarmers’ClubsofUlster(YFCU)

Respondents to the Consultation on the Interim Report, which opened on 25 February 2015 and closed 21 May 2015.

7thHeavenAnimalRescueTrust

AnimalWelfareProjectBoard

Ards&NorthDownCouncil

Page132


ArmaghCity,Banbridge&CraigavonCouncil

BallysaggartEnvironmentalGroup

BatterseaDogsandCatsHome

BelfastCityCouncil

BlueCross

BritishAssociationforShootingandConservation

BVA

CanineBreedersIrelandLtd

CarolMcCullough

CatherineHardy

CatsProtection

CausewayCoastDogRescue

ChannelviewBoardingKennels

CorinneJordan

CountrysideAllianceIreland

CrosskennanLaneAnimalSanctuary

DavidWilson

DerryCityandStrabaneDistrictCouncil

DogWelfareMatters

DogsTrust

DrPamelaScullion

ElizabethBell

EquineWelfareNetwork

Fermanagh&OmaghDC

IrishCoursingClub

IrishWorkingTerrierFederation

Page133


JaneWatt

JosephBoyleBSc

KristinaHayes

LeagueAgainstCruelSports

LindaCollins

LisburnandCastlereaghCityCouncil

Lucy’sTrust

MargaretTurtle

MichaelMilliken

MidandEastAntrimBoroughCouncil

MidUlsterCouncil

NISNTAC

NorthernIrelandBadgerGroup

OrnamentalAquaticTradeAssociation

PSNI

PublicProsecutionService

SocietyofGreyhoundVeterinarians

SoniaTreacy

SusanHunter

TheKennelClub

TheLawSociety

UFU

USPCA

ValerieMcKay

YFCU

A copy of the Interim report and summary of the consultation responses can be found at

https://www.dardni.gov.uk/consultations/interim-report-review-implementation-welfare-animals-act-ni-11

Page134


Glossary of terms

AHWIs AnimalHealthandWelfareInspectorsDARD

APHIS AnimalandPublicHealthInformationSystem.DARD’sdatabasecontainingdetailsofholdings(flocksandherds)andanimalsinNorthernIreland.

AWO AnimalWelfareOfficeroftheCouncil

C2k ICT EducationalResourceprovidedinSchools

CAFRE CollegeofAgriculture,FoodandRuralEnterprise

COP CodesofPractice

Council Regulation (EC) 1/2005

Europeanlegislationontheprotectionofanimalsduringtransport

Councils Councilsresponsiblefortheenforcementofthenon-farmedanimalwelfarelegislation

Cross-Compliance ReferstotherequirementforfarmerstocomplywithasetofStatutoryManagementRequirements(SMRs)andkeeptheirlandinGoodAgriculturalandEnvironmentalConditioninordertoqualityforfullpaymentsagriculturalsupportschemes.

CRV CriminalRecordViewer

CSB CustomerServiceBranchwithinDARD

DAFM DepartmentofAgriculture,FoodandtheMarine

DARD DepartmentofAgricultureandRuralDevelopment

DARDVS VeterinaryService(partofDARD)

DE DepartmentofEducation

Delivery Body Reference Group

Councils,DARD,DOJ,PublicProsecutionService,NorthernIrelandCourtsandTribunalServiceandPoliceServiceofNorthernIreland

DFP DepartmentofFinanceandPersonnel

DOJ DepartmentofJustice

ECHR EuropeanConventiononHumanRights

Enforcement Bodies DARD,Councils&PSNI

FQAS FarmQualityAssuranceScheme

FOI FreedomofInformation

Great Britain England,ScotlandandWales

IPAAG IrishPetAdvertisingAdvisoryGroup

LCJ LordChiefJusticeofNorthernIreland(SirDeclanMorgan)

LGR LocalGovernmentReform

Page135


Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development

MinisterMichelleO’NeillMLA,MinisterforAgricultureandRuralDevelopment

Minister for Justice MinisterDavidFordMLA,MinisterfortheDepartmentofJustice

MOU MemorandaofUnderstanding

MRNI MarketResearchNorthernIreland

NI NorthernIreland

NICTS NorthernIrelandCourtsandTribunalsService

NIDAG NorthernIrelandDogAdvisoryGroup

PACE PoliceandCriminalEvidence

PAAG PetAdvertisingAdvisoryGroup

PPS PublicProsecutionService

PR PressRelease

PSNI PoliceServiceofNorthernIreland

Review Steering Group SeniorofficialsfromDARDandDOJ

ROI RepublicofIreland

RSPCA RoyalSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals

SIU SpecialInvestigationUnit(DAFM)

SMRs StatutoryManagementRequirementsarecompliancewithspecificarticlescontainedwithin17Europeanregulatoryrequirementscoveringtheenvironment,foodsafety,animalandplanthealthandanimalwelfare.

SPVO SeniorPrincipalVeterinaryOfficer

TB Tuberculosis

the 1972 Act TheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NorthernIreland)1972

the 2011 Act TheWelfareofAnimalsAct(NorthernIreland)2011

the 2012 regulations TheWelfareofFarmedAnimals(NorthernIreland)Regulations2012(asamended)

the 2013 regulations TheWelfareofAnimals(DogBreedingEstablishmentsandMiscellaneousAmendments)Regulations(NI)2013

UK UnitedKingdom(England,Scotland,WalesandNorthernIreland)

ULS UndulyLenientSentencing

USPCA UlsterSocietyforthePreventionofCrueltytoAnimals

VO VeterinaryOfficer(DARD)

VSB VeterinaryServiceBoard(DARD)

VSEB VeterinaryServiceEnforcementBranch(DARD)

WLO WildlifeLiaisonOfficer(PSNI)

DMS:15.16.222

ISBN: 978-1-84807-604-4

Documents

New Final report of the review of the implementation of the welfare … · 2017. 12. 19. · animal cruelty. Following the debate Minister O’Neill initiated the Review of the Implementation