Patterson, R (on the application of) v RSPCA

Patterson, R (on the application of) v RSPCA

The justices were not entitled to convict Mr Patterson of breaching the disqualification order as there was insufficient evidence he was party to an arrangement entitling him to control or influence the animals' care; mere proximity or opportunity was not enough. Consequently, Mrs Patterson could not be convicted of aiding and abetting. However, Mrs Patterson was properly convicted of animal cruelty by neglect as she was responsible for the animals and failed to meet statutory obligations.

Parties
Appellant: Connor Patterson; Appellant: Caroline Patterson; Respondent: RSPCA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; convictions of Mr Patterson on all charges and Mrs Patterson on aiding and abetting quashed; Mrs Patterson's convictions for animal cruelty by neglect upheld.
Legal Topics
Disqualification Orders, Animal Cruelty, Aiding and Abetting, Standard of Proof, Responsibility for Animals
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Disqualification Orders Animal Cruelty Aiding and Abetting Standard of Proof Responsibility for Animals

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Connor Patterson

Appellant

Caroline Patterson

Appellant

RSPCA

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (case Stated) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Patterson breached a disqualification order under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 by living in proximity to animals and whether he was party to an arrangement entitling him to control or influence their care
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Patterson aided and abetted a breach of the disqualification order
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Mrs Patterson of animal cruelty by neglect

Ratio Decidendi

The justices were not entitled to convict Mr Patterson of breaching the disqualification order as there was insufficient evidence he was party to an arrangement entitling him to control or influence the animals' care; mere proximity or opportunity was not enough. Consequently, Mrs Patterson could not be convicted of aiding and abetting. However, Mrs Patterson was properly convicted of animal cruelty by neglect as she was responsible for the animals and failed to meet statutory obligations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; convictions of Mr Patterson on all charges and Mrs Patterson on aiding and abetting quashed; Mrs Patterson's convictions for animal cruelty by neglect upheld.

Orders

  • Convictions of Mr Patterson on all charges quashed and not guilty verdicts substituted.
  • Conviction of Mrs Patterson for aiding and abetting quashed and not guilty verdict substituted.