Prosecution Policy
Lawyers for Animals, Prosecution Policy
Registered name: Lawyers for Animals, registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales with registration number 1215659
Introduction
The purpose of this prosecution policy is to inform the public of Lawyers for Animal’s (LFA’s) prosecution role and to demonstrate that this aspect of the LFA’s work is carried out in a fair and consistent manner.
Aims and Objectives
LFA’s objects are:
The prevention or suppression of cruelty to animals and the prevention or relief of suffering by animals, in particular but not exclusively by promoting the sound administration of and compliance with, and securing the enforcement of, the laws relating to animal welfare, for the public benefit.
The promotion of humane behaviour towards animals, in particular but not exclusively by educating the public in matters pertaining to animal welfare in general, the prevention of cruelty and suffering among animals and the application and practice of the laws relating to animal welfare, for the public benefit.
LFA considers the prosecution of offences relating to the welfare of animals as an integral part of its function and a means by which its objects can be achieved.
LFA recognises the preventative and public benefits derived from its prosecution role.
LFA’S PROSECTUON AND FUNCTION
LFA considers its prosecution function to be integral to the advancement of its charitable purposes for the public benefit.
LFA prosecutes offences without the benefit of statutory powers and by way of private prosecutions. The right of a private individual/body to prosecute exists in common law and this right was preserved by Section 6(1) of the Prosecution of Offenders Act 1985.
LFA’s Trustees have the authority to institute criminal proceedings, which are under the control and management of the Head of Prosecutions.
LFA will consider the prosecution of individuals who have committed offences where animals have been neglected or abused or where the welfare of animals has been, or is likely to be, compromised.
Alternatives to prosecution will also be considered.
Legislation commonly used to prosecute offences will include:
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Welfare of Farmed Animal Regulations 2007
Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing Regulations 2015
Protection of Badgers Act 1992
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Deer Act 1991
Hunting Act 2004
The above list is not exhaustive. LFA may also prosecute other offences (beyond those contained in the above list of statutes) in furtherance of its charitable purpose.
Any individual summonsed by LFA may, by virtue of a S6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, refer the case to The Crown Prosecution Service for a review of the decision to prosecute. Following a review the CPS can discontinue the case if it considers that the case does not pass either the evidential or public interest tests, or the CPS can take the prosecution over and continue with it if there is a particular need for them to do so.
PROSECUTION PRINCIPLES
LFA abides by the Code for Private Prosecutors (“the Code”) as issued by the Private Prosecutors’ Association (“the PPA”). Where there is a conflict between this policy and the Code, the provisions in the Code shall prevail.
In relation to private prosecutions, our prosecution principles and framework include:
Fair and effective prosecution is essential to the maintenance of law and order, and prosecutions can and have a positive beneficial effect in advancing animal welfare.
Prosecutions will not be instituted for political or campaigning purposes.
A decision whether or not to prosecute will not be influenced by any possible political advantage or disadvantage to any political party, interest group, section of the community or individual.
Even if the case is serious, it does not mean that a prosecution will automatically follow even if there is sufficient evidence.
LFA recognises that the decision to prosecute a person suspected of an offence is an important and serious matter, given the seriousness of a criminal conviction and the penalties that may be imposed. A full analysis and review of the evidence will be done before the decision to commence proceedings is made.
LFA prosecutors must be fair, impartial and objective in the conduct of their duties. They must not let their own personal views about ethnic origin, gender, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation of suspected offenders play any part whatsoever in the consideration of any matter, nor must they be affected by improper or undue influence.
LFA prosecutors will strive to ensure that the proper defendant is identified and select charges which reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending and enable the case to be presented in a clear and straightforward way.
In so doing, LFA prosecutors will apply the principles set out in this policy, act in the interests of justice and not solely for the purpose of obtaining a conviction.
LFA prosecutors will consider alternative means of dealing with an individual (other than a prosecution) and advise underlying investigators in appropriate circumstances.
The Prosecutions Department will do all that is possible to ensure that prosecutions are conducted fairly, expeditiously and in accordance with legal requirements.
LFA prosecutors will continuously review all cases in liaison with the instructed solicitor or barrister.
LFA prosecutors will have regard to the following factors in considering whether proceedings should be discontinued: New and compelling evidence not previously available, including new information which may or may not be contained in a defence case statement; insufficient evidence to continue with the prosecution; or exceptional circumstances where it is considered not to be in the public interest or the interests of justice to continue the proceeding.
CHARGING GUIDANCE
The Head of Prosecutions (“HOP”) will undertake the ultimate assessment and/or oversee the assessment by a suitably qualified lawyer as to whether the evidence is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction and, if it is, then they consider whether it is in the public interest to prosecute.
It is accepted that each and every case must be considered on its own merits. The HOP will ensure that the right person is prosecuted for the right offence and that appropriate charges are selected.
LFA will only institute a private prosecution if:
the evidence shows that there is a realistic prospect of conviction (“the evidential test”); and
it is in the public interest to prosecute (“the public interest test”).
Case decisions will be reviewed and assessed having regard to the current edition of the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors as issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985.
If the evidential test is not met no action will be taken.
If the evidential test is met but the public interest test is not, consideration should be given to utilising an out of court disposal.
LFA will abide by the following principles:
There must be no overcharging, and charges should be proportionate to the offences. Animal welfare cases can create a number of separate offences, but charges should reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending.
It is not a requirement that all offences disclosed during an investigation will be subject to a charge.
It is generally sufficient that the charges reflect the overall seriousness of offending.
The offences charged must provide the court with adequate sentencing powers having regard to all of the circumstances of the case.
The respective levels of culpability of each suspect must be taken into account, as some cases may involve more than one suspect.
Although a full review is required before a suspect is charged, the review of a case is a continuing process intended to take account of any change of circumstance, and which may lead to reassessment of either or both of the evidential and public interest tests.
Each and every case must be assessed on its own merits; there can be no presumption that a particular type of case will always be disposed of in a particular manner.
Different suspects in a case can be dealt with by different means of disposal.
Cases should be prosecuted effectively and in the interest of justice.
Current sentencing guidelines, relevant Welfare Codes of Practice and the youth offender gravity factor matrix may be considered to assist decision makers.
Our Appendix A entails a flow chart setting out the process up to the point of charge.
APPLICATION OF THE CODE FOR CROWN PROSECUTORS
The policy is intended to set out the criteria which LFA applies the Code for Crown Prosecutors to animal welfare offences.
LFA supports and applies the principles contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
The Code for Crown Prosecutors
This sets out the general principles for prosecutors to follow.
In particular:
Each case must be considered on its own merits
Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective
Prosecutors must act in the interests of justice
The code also provides guidance regarding the decision to prosecute. It confirms that:
The police and other investigators are responsible for conducting enquiries into alleged crime
That a prosecution should only start if the full code test has been satisfied
That the review of a case is a continuing process and account must be taken of any changes in circumstance
The code sets out a two stage test:
The evidential stage
Prosecutors to be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge.
The public interest stage
Prosecutors to decide whether the public interest requires a prosecution.
Applying the Code – Evidential Test
Prosecutors must always ensure that the evidence is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of conviction in respect of each offence and for each individual.
Prosecutors must ensure that evidence is admissible, reliable and credible and can be used in court.
Consideration should be given to the following:
Can the identity of the owner(s) or person(s) responsible for the animal be established?
Are the suspect(s) identified sufficiently?
If consideration is being given to signing a S31 certificate (to commence proceedings outside the 6 month time limit by virtue of S31 Animal Welfare Act 2006) does it comply with the current legal position relating to such certification?
Are there any legal issues which need to be considered?
Any relevant case law which supports, or damages, the case?
If there is an expert’s report has it considered the welfare issues sufficiently and adequately described the breach of the legislative requirements welfare
Is the way in which the evidence obtained have an effect on the admissibility of the evidence?
Consideration should be given to any S78 application
Is there hearsay evidence which will require a Criminal Justice Act 2003 application to be made
Is the suspect known? Has he/she/they received any welfare notices, cautions, or convictions previously? Does this affect the decision – does it show a pattern of offending and/or is the offending escalating?
Consideration of any bad character application
Can reference be made to the Welfare Codes of Practice? Are they relevant to establish that the animal’s welfare has been compromised or it has fallen below the minimum standards of care? Prosecution case managers must be aware of the essential elements of an offence.
The precise nature of evidence will be variable and dependent on the particular offence concerned.
Applying the Code – Public Interest Test
A prosecution will usually take place unless the prosecutor is satisfied that there are public interest factors tending against prosecution which outweigh those tending in favour.
The Code provides guidance regarding the factors that might be considered when applying the public interest test. These include seriousness, culpability, harm caused, age and infirmity of the suspect and proportionality.
(a) How serious is the offence?
The more serious an offence the more likely it is that a prosecution will be appropriate. Some of the factors that may increase the level of seriousness in animal welfare cases are:
Death or serious injury/harm to the animal(s).
A high level of suffering.
Prolonged, gratuitous, deliberate or malicious suffering.
Organised or gang-based cruelty.
Large scale professional operation with the cruelty/suffering committed for financial gain and profit.
Use of another animal to inflict death, injury or harm to another animal.
Use of weapons against an animal.
Planned or premeditated.
Number of animals or wildlife affected.
Filming the incident and using technology to promote cruelty.
Previous convictions and relevance of those to the current offence.
Failure to comply with advice and previous welfare notices given by the other enforcement agency.
Failure to comply with previous court orders.
Offence committed whilst on bail, supervision or licence.
Distress caused to the owner or the person responsible for the animal.
An inexperienced person allowed to have care of the animal(s).
The animal requires significant intervention to recover due to serious veterinary conditions requiring either urgent veterinary attention or long-term care and treatment.
The animal is being used in public service or is an assistance animal.
Widespread or repeated offending
Factors reducing seriousness include:
No outstanding animal welfare concerns, including potential concerns on future ownership.
Isolated incident.
Personal mitigation such as age, lack of maturity, mental health or learning disorders where it is not linked to the commission of the offence.
Sufficient remedial action already undertaken.
(b) What is the level of culpability?
Factors increasing culpability include:
The suspect’s involvement – Was he or she the main offender or did they play a lesser role in the offending?
Ill treatment in a commercial context and what part did the suspect play?
The leading role in the criminal activity
Whether the offence was planned or premeditated
Adult(s) involving a child in the offending
Offender was at the time in a position of authority
Mental health or learning disorder where it is not linked to the commission of the offence
Factors reducing culpability include:
Well intentioned but incompetent care
Mental disorder or learning disability, where linked to the offending
Offender has been given an inappropriate level of trust or responsibility
(c) What is the level of harm?
In terms of the animal victims in an animal welfare offence consideration will be had to:
The extent and level of the harm/injury/suffering caused to the animal
Was it prolonged?
Did the injury or the cause of harm/neglect or suffering require a significant recovery with any long lasting behavioural problems?
Did the animal have to be euthanised due to the extent of the harm/suffering/injury?
(d) Was the suspect under the age of 18 at the time?
LFA has regard to the Youth Sentencing Guidelines and recognises that wherever possible younger persons should be diverted from the criminal justice system.
Where an offence is of a very serious nature, LFA may prosecute in appropriate cases and will not avoid a decision to prosecute simply because of a suspect’s age and there may be circumstances in which there is no suitable alternative to prosecution.
If any offence committed by a child or young person is in a category that falls short of requiring a prosecution but is of a type that cannot be ignored then LFA will liaise with the police with a view to determining whether an out of court disposal might be appropriate.
(e) What was the impact on the community?
The greater the impact of the offending on the community, the more likely it is that a prosecution is required.
The prevalence of an offence in a community may cause particular harm to that community, increasing the seriousness of the offending.
Community is not restricted to communities defined by location and may relate to a group of people who share certain characteristics, experiences or backgrounds, including an occupational group.
Evidence of impact on a community may be obtained by way of a Community Impact Statement.
(f) Is the prosecution a proportionate response?
In considering whether prosecution is proportionate to the likely outcome, the following may be relevant:
The cost, especially where it could be regarded as excessive when weighed against any likely penalty. Prosecutors should not decide the public interest on the basis of this factor alone. It is essential that regard is also given to the public interest factors identified but cost can be a relevant factor when making an overall assessment of the public interest.
Cases should be prosecuted in accordance with principles of effective case management. For example, in a case involving multiple suspects, prosecution might be reserved for the main participants in order to avoid excessively long and complex proceedings.
(g) Do sources require protection?
In cases where public interest immunity does not apply, special care should be taken when proceeding with a prosecution where details may need to be made public that could harm sources of information, ongoing investigations, international relations or national security. It is essential that such cases are kept under continuing review.
Policy last updated: October 2025