Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, R (on the application of) v Shinton

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty To Animals, R (on the application of) v Shinton

The district judge was correct to acquit under section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 because the use of the Larsen trap was for the purpose of conserving wild birds and within the terms of the licence. However, the district judge was wrong to acquit under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as the evidence showed the decoy magpie suffered unnecessarily, and lawful use under licence does not justify such suffering.

Parties
Claimant: Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Defendant: Norman Ronald Shinton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Case Stated
Outcome
partly allowed
Legal Topics
Use of Larsen Traps, Conservation of Wild Birds, Unnecessary Suffering to Animals, Statutory Interpretation
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Law Environmental Law Use of Larsen Traps Conservation of Wild Birds Unnecessary Suffering to Animals Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Claimant

Norman Ronald Shinton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Case Stated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of a Larsen trap must in fact promote conservation of wild birds or if honest and reasonable belief suffices
  2. 2 Whether an offence of unnecessary suffering to a decoy bird can be made out if the trap is used in accordance with a licence
  3. 3 Whether acquittal under section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The district judge was correct to acquit under section 8(1) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 because the use of the Larsen trap was for the purpose of conserving wild birds and within the terms of the licence. However, the district judge was wrong to acquit under section 1(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as the evidence showed the decoy magpie suffered unnecessarily, and lawful use under licence does not justify such suffering.

Court Disposition

partly allowed

Orders

  • District judge's acquittal under section 8(1) Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 upheld
  • District judge's acquittal under section 1(1)(a) Protection of Animals Act 1911 overturned