Arthur, R (on the application of) v RSPCA [2005] EWHC 2616 (Admin) (20 October 2005)

Arthur, R (on the application of) v RSPCA [2005] EWHC 2616 (Admin) (20 October 2005)

Transporting the horses in the horsebox constituted 'keeping' and 'having custody' within the meaning of the statutory order, regardless of ownership or transient nature, and the wording difference in the original order did not invalidate it.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2616 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: David Anthony Arthur; Defendant: RSPCA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal From Crown Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification From Keeping Animals, Interpretation of Statutory Terms, Breach of Court Order
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Law Disqualification From Keeping Animals Interpretation of Statutory Terms Breach of Court Order

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Arthur

Claimant

RSPCA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal From Crown Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a legal distinction between 'keeping' and 'custody' under the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 1954
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's actions constituted 'keeping' or 'having custody' of animals in breach of the order
  3. 3 Validity of the original order using 'keeping' instead of statutory 'custody'

Ratio Decidendi

Transporting the horses in the horsebox constituted 'keeping' and 'having custody' within the meaning of the statutory order, regardless of ownership or transient nature, and the wording difference in the original order did not invalidate it.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs
  • Formal answers to lower court's questions: no distinction between 'custody' and 'keeping'; period was not transient; original order not invalid for wording.