Arthur, R (on the application of) v RSPCA

Arthur, R (on the application of) v RSPCA

The appellant was in breach of the disqualification order because, during the period he transported the horses in the horsebox, he had custody of and was keeping the animals within the meaning of the statute. The distinction between 'keeping' and 'custody' was immaterial in the circumstances, and the order was not invalid for using 'keeping' instead of 'custody'. The period of control was not transient.

Parties
Claimant: David Anthony Arthur; Defendant: RSPCA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Appeal / High Court Appeal From Crown Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disqualification Orders, Custody of Animals, Interpretation of Statutory Language, Appeals Procedure
Criminal Law Animal Welfare Disqualification Orders Custody of Animals Interpretation of Statutory Language Appeals Procedure

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Anthony Arthur

Claimant

RSPCA

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Appeal / High Court Appeal From Crown Court Decision

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was in breach of the disqualification order because, during the period he transported the horses in the horsebox, he had custody of and was keeping the animals within the meaning of the statute. The distinction between 'keeping' and 'custody' was immaterial in the circumstances, and the order was not invalid for using 'keeping' instead of 'custody'. The period of control was not transient.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs