Animal Cruelty

Private Members' Business – in the Northern Ireland Assembly at 3:45 pm on 31 March 2014.

Alert me about debates like this

Debate resumed on motion:

That this Assembly notes with concern the number of cases of extreme animal cruelty that have occurred recently, the low number of convictions and the failure to impose the maximum sentence available; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in conjunction with the Minister of Justice, to initiate a review of the implementation of animal cruelty legislation, particularly sentencing guidelines and practices, to ensure that the maximum effectiveness is being brought to bear to combat these crimes. — [Mr Wells.]

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

Animal cruelty is abhorrent to all right-thinking people.  I pay tribute to all volunteers and charitable organisations that have animal welfare and the interests of animals at heart.

I am pleased that, some years ago, I was able to propose and take a debate through Belfast City Council that took a positive step in the protection of animals, which was Belfast City Council not permitting wild animal circuses to use council property.  If, as an elected representative, you are disposed towards supporting this motion, you should also consider a motion in local councils to prevent animal circuses from using local council property.  Wild animal circuses are cruel and should be banned.

I received correspondence on the issue from constituents, and I suppose many MLAs received similar correspondence.  One of the constituents who wrote to me quoted St Francis of Assisi, saying:

"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."

Every day in Northern Ireland, animals are mistreated, deserted, ignored and uncared for.  Some are left in filthy conditions where they have insufficient food, insufficient clean bedding and do not receive the kindness that they require.

Photo of Edwin Poots Edwin Poots DUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  He quoted St Francis of Assisi, and most people were astounded and disgusted at the behaviour of the Kirkwoods after the court case and at the sentence that was given out.  In Lagan Valley, we had an instance in which a dog was burned and had to be put down after a number of days.  Is it not the case that generally people who engage in that type of behaviour have a tendency towards criminality in general?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I will come on to that point.  I thank the Member for his intervention.

In November last year, I was prompted to write to the Chief Constable about animal cruelty.  The response that I received gave me cause for concern, because in it he put the numbers of recorded crimes against animals into categories.  Take the category, "Keeping or training of an animal for an animal fight", there were 38 recorded offences and no convictions.  In the category, "Permitting unnecessary suffering to animals", there were 39 recorded offences and no convictions.  In the category, "Causing unnecessary suffering to animals", there were 85 recorded offences and 13 convictions, which is 15%.  In the category, "Permitting cruelty to animals", there were two recorded offences and no convictions.  I do not think that we find that acceptable.

Some animals get rescued and get a second chance to experience a good home environment.  That helps to build trust between humans and animals, but many are not that fortunate.  If we are to mature as a devolved Assembly, we need to make obvious our concerns to show that we care about animals and deal with those wicked and heartless owners who abuse animals.  We need to send out severe punishment via custodial sentences rather than light touches and kid glove treatment.

Coming back to the intervention, many people believe that by stopping animal abuse you can affect other issues.  Reporting, investigating and prosecuting animal cruelty can help take dangerous criminals off the streets.  The police know that in homes where animal abuse is a problem there are often other issues.  Acts of criminal cruelty are linked to a variety of other crimes.  Those guilty of animal cruelty and abuse are frequently found to be involved in a variety of other crimes, including violence against people and property and drugs and disorderly conduct offences.  Stopping animal abuse in children can help curb violent tendencies before they escalate into violence against people.  There has been lots of research by the Humane Society of the United States that indicates that.

Pet abuse is one of the four predictors of domestic partner violence according to a gold standard study by the Humane Society, which was conducted over 11 metropolitan cities.  In domestic violence and child abuse situations, abusers may manipulate and control their human victims through threatened or actual violence against family pets.  Researchers know that between 71% and 83% of women who enter domestic violence shelters report that their partners also abused or killed the family pet before abusing them.

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I speak to the motion as a member of the Justice Committee, as the issues of conviction and failure to impose the maximum sentence for animal cruelty are justice matters.  As someone who comes from a farming background and a rural community, I know that it is vital that we have strong animal cruelty legislation.

Those who have a statutory duty over animal welfare in the North of Ireland enforce the law that protects animals.  As a society and as elected Members, we should foster a climate in which all animals are respected and protected from abuse.  The powers that we currently have derive from the Welfare of Animals Act 2011.  Penalties were strengthened in the Act, which was one of several pieces of legislation brought through the Assembly.  It was a major step forward in protecting the welfare of animals, farmed and non-farmed alike. 

For the first time, the powers place a duty of care on anyone responsible for animals and allow for action to be taken to prevent animals from suffering, as opposed to having to wait until suffering has occurred.  As a result of the 2011 Act, the PSNI has stronger powers to deal with the horrific practice of animal fighting, and stiffer penalties are available to the courts to deal severely with those who cause animals to suffer.

We are debating the motion today because of the recent high-profile cases in Belfast Crown Court, where four men were sentenced to six months' imprisonment, suspended for two years, following their guilty plea to animal cruelty charges, after the judge said that mitigating circumstances were put forward.  As other Members said, the defendants flouted the outcome as they came out of court.  In the Act, it is a matter for the judiciary to ensure that sentencing is sufficient and reflects the severity of the crimes of cruelty.  To ensure that there are proper deterrents, it is important that there be consistency when cases are taken before the courts.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way.  Has the Member considered whether the outcome of the case might lead us to review whether the maximum penalty for animal cruelty is adequate?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

I thank the Member for his intervention.  I will be speaking about that issue.

The Public Prosecution Service (PPS) should maybe review the case to see whether the sentences can be revisited, particularly in the light of the defendants' behaviour afterwards.  The motion mentions the failure to impose the maximum sentence.  It is in that context that recent cases need to be focused.  The merits of the motion are fine, but any legislation needs to be —

Photo of Robin Newton Robin Newton DUP

I thank the Member for giving way, and I appreciate the words that he has used.  Will he tell the House whether he would apply sentencing to hare coursing, which is also deemed by many to be a barbaric sport?

Photo of Sean Lynch Sean Lynch Sinn Féin

I think that the issue the Member mentions is covered by legislation.

As I said, the merits of the motion are fine.  I believe that any legislation needs to be reviewed.  However, the Act is relatively new and needs time to bed in.  Our priority should remain tackling the crime of animal cruelty.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I endorse and support my party's motion on the very serious issue of animal cruelty.  Like others, I have received a plethora of letters from constituents, and from others in the wider Northern Ireland setting, who are concerned about this very issue.  It is right and proper that we bring it to the House for debate.  However, I remind Members that the issue was debated, along similar lines, on 24 September 2012, when there was a public outcry and scenes in the media around what happened to Cody the dog.  That case is still going through the court procedure, so we have to be careful about what we say in order not to jeopardise the case, which is to be resolved very soon, I believe.

However, there should be a lesson here, and it is a lesson for us all.  There should be a lesson for society that it is judged on the way in which it treats the most vulnerable in society, those who cannot speak for themselves and the animals that cannot speak for themselves.  It is incumbent on us all to react to acts that can only be described as barbaric and, in some cases, satanic.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

Yes, I will.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I appreciate the Member's comments.  It is an issue that I feel very strongly about.  Does he agree that we, as an Assembly, need to be consistent in our views on animal cruelty?  Does he agree that whether we set a dog on a cat, a dog on a dog, a dog on a badger or a dog on a fox, the animal suffers the same cruelty, and that we should take the same approach across the board and be consistent and, ultimately, move to ban fox hunting and other barbaric acts?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for his intervention and the Deputy Speaker for the added minute.

To equate fox hunting with the cruelty and neglect of those animals is sparse.  The Member needs to look at himself and his argument.  People who are custodians of the environment and the land, through their practices, bring employment and money into the countryside.  To equate that with the cruelty and the barbaric and satanic actions of some criminals is weak and —

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

No; I want to push on with my arguments, but I understand that the Member would want to come back.  I am sure that he will have an opportunity during his own contribution. 

I do not see that link, and I do not agree with it whatsoever; it is horrendous to link them.  When cats have been torn to shreds and dogs have been trained to fight each other, that is utterly barbaric and satanic.  Members of the public certainly know who is responsible for the crimes, but they are confused about who is responsible for the investigations.  We know that councils and their animal welfare officers are responsible for the non-farmed animals; we know that the PSNI is responsible for investigating the wild animals, animal fighting and welfare issues where other criminal activities are involved; and we know that DARD is responsible for farmed animals.  We know that farmed animals have been neglected and that, after investigation, there were 136 cases in the past three years.  Compare that with non-farmed animals, where there were 7,611 cases.  You can see the perspective and the proportionality that we must put on the farmed-animal cases.

Many farmers have been in with me over the past year, and it is clear that they have suffered physically and mentally trying to take care of their farmed animals.  They have fed their animals before they have fed themselves, and they have looked after their animals before they have looked after their business.  As a result, they have not been able to look after themselves or their animals.  In some cases, farmers have been penalised and/or the animals confiscated, and that is sad.  I think that it was Jim Wells who referred to the difference between neglect and deliberate cruelty and torture.  It is good to reflect on that and see the difference. 

There is no doubt that we have been here before and talked about the issue before.  I have stood before the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and talked about the Government being agile to deal with such cases and to be able to impose tougher sentences.  I have some sympathy with the Agriculture Minister on this occasion because, while her predecessor spent many months on the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 — I was not in my current post at the time, but I remember the long nights of debate that we had in the Chamber — it does not seem to be fit for purpose, even though it has been in statute for only a couple of years.  It should then be on us, and the Government should be agile enough, to change that, where and when we can.  That will not be in the Minister's gift alone; she will have to work with the Minister of Justice.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I support action so that we get legislation and sentencing that fit this heinous and barbaric crime.

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I support the motion, which is very timely.  I thank Mr Jim Wells for bringing the motion to the House; it is the proper thing to do.  Given the public anger in the wake of the recent case, it is appropriate that the House should express its views on what happened.

Of course, we have to put it into some sort of context.  It has to be said that those who were charged were initially charged with more serious offences than the ones that they were actually found guilty of.  During the trial, they changed their plea and pleaded guilty to lesser offences.  As the judge said in her judgement, those lesser offences could well have been tried in the Magistrates' Court as opposed to the Crown Court, and the maximum sentence that would have been imposed in the Magistrates' Court would have been six months.  I think that that constrained the learned trial judge in imposing a six-month sentence as opposed to a two-year sentence or one in excess of six months.  However, one has to ask why, if she took that course of action, she suspended the sentence rather than imposing one of imprisonment.  To my mind, that is unexplained in the papers that I have read.

The House should remember, however, that judges are there to judge.  They are not there to press a button and produce a uniform set of penalties.  A judge has to be given a certain amount of discretion.  She deplored what happened.  I am sure that she shares the universal view of the House that what happened was quite despicable, hideous and inhuman.

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP

I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  I agree with him entirely.  He obviously has great experience of the courts; much more than many of us.  Surely the point that needs to be made is that, although the judge may well have said what she said in court, it was the reporting of the case and the appalling scenes outside the court that were conveyed to the general public.  Therefore, the key issue is a deterrent to prevent that sort of appalling action from happening again, as other Members have said.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Raymond McCartney Raymond McCartney Sinn Féin

From his experience, does the Member believe that what happened outside the court could be termed as contempt of court and that, perhaps, charges could be laid?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

It certainly bordered on that.  It certainly showed a lack of contrition on the part of at least one, if not more, of those who had just been sentenced.  It certainly indicated that there was really no change in attitude by that person, at least about the offences to which he had pleaded guilty.

Perhaps the court was misled about the attitude of at least one of the defendants, if not more, which can happen.  I am not excusing, in any sense, the terrible misbehaviour and gloating of the person who was shown in photographs etc.  However, further to the point made by Mr Humphrey, the police expressed their disappointment.  They had put a tremendous effort into getting a conviction or convictions in this case, and, of course, they got a conviction or convictions as a result of the defendants pleading guilty. 

However, this case highlights two points:  convictions are necessary to highlight such cruelty; but convictions are difficult to get.  An animal cannot talk.  A victim of assault can say that so and so did this and that and so forth, but in animal cruelty cases one is reliant on things other than what could be termed the animal complainant.  You need additional evidence, which, in many cases, is not found.  That is why cases cannot be proceeded with — the evidence simply is not there. 

The law is sufficient —

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

Will the Member draw his remarks to a close?

Photo of Alban Maginness Alban Maginness Social Democratic and Labour Party

I will.  The law is, I believe, sufficient, but it would be good for us to review the legislation to ensure that something such as this does not happen again.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I welcome the debate and appreciate Members tabling the motion.  Animal cruelty has plagued this society for years and, indeed, generations.  However, we need to differentiate between deliberate cruelty to animals and what some may believe is cruelty.  We have had several debates on the subject.  Mr Frew referred to the Welfare of Animals Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, which went through the House just three years ago.  I remember our having several discussions about the rights and wrongs of that Act and where we felt that it did not have enough enforcement opportunities.  

Resources need to be much better targeted at those in the underworld who are deliberately and illegally cruel to animals.  Others, specifically people in some breeding establishments, are continually plagued, almost harassed, by some of the agencies and organisations.  These people act within the law and keep their premises in good condition, but the agencies want to pressurise them into even more difficult situations and scenarios.  On occasion, animals have been lifted from their premises and treated very badly when in the care of the agency that removed them.  That is not fair or reasonable, which is why I go back to the point that the agencies — whether the Department of Agriculture, the police or local councils — need to target enforcement much better, which they are not doing at present.

When we hear of how people train dogs to fight —

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  He makes a valid point.  However, in some instances, when you make the police aware of an issue in a field, barn or somewhere else, they do not really know how to deal with it properly.  There should be additional training for that.  Of course, it will not be a massive priority for the PSNI.

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

Thank you very much, and I thank the Member for that intervention.  Not only training but a wider process of much better cooperation between all the agencies is required.

Once you start to tackle those major issues, whether they are dogfighting or whatever, you will find that there needs to be a concerted campaign, because you will not get away with tackling them on a one-off basis.  There needs to be a concerted campaign so that we can be sure that, when the agencies go in, they can make the arrests and get convictions.  As we have seen in the past, people are arrested, but, quite often, no charges are brought, or sometimes when charges are brought, the cases are thrown out of court.

I listened to Mr Maginness protecting the courts system to some degree.  He is quite entitled to do so, because we know that there are boundaries within which the agencies have to operate.  We accept that, but we need to be sure that, when the agencies go to arrest these people, they can secure a conviction.  The reason why I believe that that does not always happen is because they do not have expertise in doing that.  So, we need more expertise in that area. 

To return to my earlier point, sometimes the easy targets are the people who the agencies prey upon.  In County Fermanagh, we had the unfortunate situation some time ago where a number of dogs were collected from a breeding establishment and came back to that establishment many months later in a very poor condition that was much worse than that when they left.  I think that that was a very unfortunate situation and one that we certainly do not want to see repeated. 

I reiterate that we must target the enforcement and our resources and ensure that the right people are brought to book.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP 4:15, 31 March 2014

I will speak in broad support of many Members' contributions.  In the context of Mr Elliott's comments, I think that it is important that we separate some of the issues and make sure that our enforcement is bang on the money.  In the previous Assembly mandate, he and I were pushing for legislation to deal with this issue, and I think that that was an important step forward. 

Mr Maginness quite rightly pointed out that, in any legal system, evidence is needed to establish guilt.  Where that falls short, no legislation will change that situation.  I agree strongly with Mr Elliott's points that we need to target those illegal puppy farms.  We had several examples in my constituency near Katesbridge and just outside my constituency near Loughbrickland.  Those are places of cruelty.  I think that it was Mr Frew who talked about the "torture" of animals.  I think that that has to be targeted strongly by not only the Department but the police.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I thank the Member for giving way.  He might agree with Mr Frew that hunting a fox with a dog is not cruelty.  Personally, I do not see the difference between setting a dog on a cat and setting a dog on a badger or a fox.  However, is the Member aware that the Welfare of Animals Act explicitly excludes hunting from the provision of "unnecessary suffering", the bar by which a crime is set?  Does the Member not agree that that bar should include the killing of any animal and that hunting should be brought into it, with the courts being allowed to decide whether that is unnecessary suffering?

Photo of Roy Beggs Roy Beggs UUP

The Member has an extra minute.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I am grateful to Mr Agnew for that.  He made an interesting point.  I have to say that I am probably closer to Mr Frew on fox hunting, but the Member made an interesting point about where exactly that responsibility should sit and where the bar should be.

Photo of Paul Frew Paul Frew DUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  I do not mean to turn this into a pro-hunting debate, as it would do the debate on this motion an ill justice, but can the Member tell us and maybe tell his colleague beside him how many foxes are caught in a hunt?  I certainly do not know.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

I do not have those figures at hand.  Maybe Mr Agnew can hurriedly find them for me.

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

Well, I am keen that I do not turn into a go-between on fox hunting, but I will give way briefly.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I will be very brief.  I am told by those who defend fox hunting that it is pest control.  Either foxes are caught or they are not.  If they are caught, in my opinion, it is cruel; if they are not, how can it be claimed to be pest control?

Photo of John McCallister John McCallister UUP

That is quite true.  In my knowledge of fox hunting there never seems to be that many foxes caught.  It is probably different due to different types of agricultural activity, smaller field sizes and all those things.  However, Mr Frew's point about the debate is correct; the real target has to be that wanton neglect and torture of animals.  That is where we should and must target our resources.  I am sure that the Minister will say that it is not only her Department's responsibility; the police also have a role in building up those cases.

We have all followed some of those cases in the media.  Some of the pictures from those scenes are almost too harrowing to show on television or in the newspapers.  Quite rightly, in talking about the motion, that is where we have to maintain our focus.  We are all truly appalled, and we want to see more done.  There is a genuine feeling on all sides of the House that we want to see activity such as that absolutely stamped out, and we want to see cases brought before the courts.  We want to see very strong, robust sentences given to those convicted of such barbarism against animals.  That is where there is a genuine desire from all sides of the House to see something meaningful done, with all the agencies at the disposal of this Government, to bring forward those ideas and make sure that we stamp out this cruel business.

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle.  I thank the proposers of the motion, which raises the very important issue of the substantial penalties available under the Welfare of Animals Act 2011 and underlines the need for the courts to make full use of the range of sentences when dealing with those found guilty of committing serious animal welfare offences.  I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue in the Chamber today.  Throughout the course of my contribution I intend to address all the issues that have been raised today.

Before getting into dealing with that, I want to put it on record that I totally deplore all incidences of animal cruelty and neglect, which are totally unacceptable.  Appropriate action needs to be taken to deal with offenders in such cases.  I believe that abhorrent acts such as those that were the subject of the recent case in east Belfast cannot and should not be tolerated in today’s society.  I am disappointed that a substantial custodial sentence was not imposed by the court despite the option being available in the 2011 Act.

The welfare of animals here is protected by the 2011 Act, for which my Department has legislative responsibility.  That Act affords a high degree of protection to animals and greatly strengthens the powers to deal with animal welfare issues. It has introduced a duty of care for all protected animals, allows action to be taken to protect animals from unnecessary suffering, strengthens the powers in respect of animal fighting, provides powers to regulate a wide range of activities involving animals and increases the penalties for all animal welfare offences.  In particular, the 2011 Act recognises that causing any animal unnecessary suffering is a very serious offence, and to reflect this it significantly increases the penalties from those that were available under the previous 1972 Act.

When the Welfare of Animals Bill was being considered by the Assembly, everyone agreed that the penalties for welfare offences needed to be increased substantially.  Consequently, the 2011 Act increased the penalties to a maximum of six months' imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of £5,000 on summary conviction in the Magistrates’ Court and a maximum of two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine on conviction by indictment in the High Court with a jury. 

Providing the option for serious cases to be dealt with either summarily or on indictment, with an unlimited fine on indictment, is important as it allows the most serious cases to be heard in the Crown Court and could result in a longer prison sentence.  It also reflects how seriously my Department views animal welfare offences.  It is important to note that those penalties are considerably stiffer than those in Britain.

Dogfighting is a specific offence under the 2011 Act, and that means that the PSNI

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I thank the Minister for giving way.  In her comments so far, she compared the maximum penalty with that in Great Britain.  How does the maximum penalty in Northern Ireland compare with that in the Republic of Ireland?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

The Member referred to that earlier in the debate.  The Twenty-six Counties recently brought in animal welfare legislation and has now moved the penalties up to five years' imprisonment.  When we brought forward our legislation, it was the most progressive legislation.  It is still relatively new, but I will pick up on that throughout my contribution.

As I said, dogfighting is a specific offence under the 2011 Act, and that means that the PSNI now has stronger powers to deal with any form of animal fighting, including baiting.  It is an offence to make animals fight, be present at an animal fight, train an animal for a fight, make or accept a bet on a fight and record, supply or possess any recording of an animal fight without reasonable excuse, such as to assist with law enforcement. 

For the more serious offences, including the failure to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals or causing, permitting or attending animal fights, cases can be trialled in the Crown Court, where the maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine or both.  In addition, the court can deprive a person convicted of a serious animal welfare offence of ownership of the animal to which the offence related, should he or she be the owner.  The court can also disqualify a person convicted of a serious animal welfare offence for such a period as it sees fit from owning, keeping, participating in the keeping or controlling or influencing the way an animal is kept.  That disqualification could be for life and for one or more species of animal.

When the 2011 Act was being developed, the proposed penalties were put to the Minister of Justice, the Executive and the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee before coming to the Assembly.  The Minister of Justice advised that he was content with the proposed offences and penalties in the Bill and commented that they were proportionate and sat comfortably within the criminal law framework.  The Assembly fully supported the 2011 Act and the substantial penalties that were included in it.

I can assure you that I take the welfare of animals very seriously.  I believe that the maximum penalties in the 2011 Act have the potential to provide a strong deterrent, thus protecting animals from unnecessary suffering, including deliberate acts of cruelty, provided the courts are willing to make full use of the sentences that are available.

Photo of Steven Agnew Steven Agnew Green

I thank the Minister for giving way.  She will be aware that fox hunting is exempt from the provisions in the Bill to prevent unnecessary suffering.  Will she give a reason for that?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

As I said, when the Bill was brought forward in 2011, that issue was debated at length in the House, and decisions were arrived at at that time.  There is a risk of detracting from what we are talking about today, which is how this issue is dealt with in the courts.  I believe that we have very strong legislation in place, but it is up to the courts to enforce it.  I want to make that very clear.  I will deal with that issue when I speak about sentencing.

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I thank the Minister for giving way.  Her comments are pertinent to my point.  She indicated that the Minister of Justice was content with the legislation when it went through at the time, but the Minister of Justice wrote to someone a couple of days ago and indicated that he believes that the legislation is not fit for purpose and needs to be changed.  That is just a couple of years on.  What is the Department's view on that?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I cannot comment on whom the Minister writes to or anything that he puts in his personal correspondence.  However, I am the appropriate person to raise that issue with, and he has not as yet written to me to address that.  I am very happy to talk to the Minister of Justice at any time if he wishes to discuss that further.

It is very important to bear in mind that sentencing within the legislative framework is a matter for the judiciary.  I met the Justice Minister in November 2012, and we discussed the scope for encouraging the courts to use the maximum sentences available for serious animal offences.  Subsequently, the Lord Chief Justice, in his programme of action on sentencing, published new sentencing guidelines for Magistrates' Courts in December 2013.  The guidelines cover the offences of animal cruelty, docking of dogs' tails and animal fighting.

I understand that, in making decisions on sentencing, judges take into account the law, the seriousness of the offence, any aggravating or mitigating factors, sentencing guidelines and all the relevant circumstances of each case, including pre-sentence reports on defendants.  However, I advocate the use of the full range of sentences available for animal welfare offences to ensure that the perpetrators of extremely serious offences receive a punishment that fits the crime.

Photo of Joe Byrne Joe Byrne Social Democratic and Labour Party 4:30, 31 March 2014

I thank the Minister for giving way.  Is she aware of the abandoned horses found in the Clogher mountain area, on the south Tyrone and north Monaghan border?  How does she or her Department intend to deal with the issue?

Photo of Michelle O'Neill Michelle O'Neill Sinn Féin

I confirm to the Member that all those horses, and the horse carcasses, have been removed.  There are no horses in the Clogher valley hills at this time.

Given his responsibilities on sentencing matters, I have written to the Lord Chief Justice to highlight the public concern regarding the sentences in the recent east Belfast case.  I have also written to the Minister of Justice asking him to specifically consider animal welfare offences in any future review of the criteria under which the Director of Public Prosecutions may apply to the Court of Appeal for a review of unduly lenient sentences.

The recent east Belfast case demonstrated the importance of allowing the option for sentences to be subject to prosecution appeal.  That would help to ensure that appropriate and consistent penalties are imposed by the courts.  It is crucial that respect for animal welfare be maintained, and that can only be achieved if the sentences available for serious animal welfare offences in the 2011 Act are imposed when justified and that the perpetrators receive a punishment that fits the crime.

It may be helpful if I explain how the 2011 Act is implemented.  It is important to remember that the Act extended the resources available to deal with breaches of animal welfare legislation.  The enforcement roles in the 2011 Act are very clear:  DARD has responsibility for the enforcement of the welfare of farmed animals; councils have responsibility for the enforcement of the welfare of other animals, that is domestic pets and horses; and the PSNI has responsibility for enforcement in respect of animal fighting, welfare issues or where other criminal activities are involved.

The enforcement powers in the 2011 Act allow inspectors to take a range of actions to address any animal welfare case.  That includes providing basic advice and guidance, giving a warning or issuing a legally binding improvement notice, as well as prosecution. 

It is important to recognise that not all incidents of animal suffering and neglect warrant prosecution.  The success of the implementation of the Welfare of Animals Act cannot be measured solely on the number of prosecutions taken.  Indeed, it would be naive to think that a prosecution is the only appropriate method of enforcing the Act.  For example, since councils' enforcement role began for domestic pets and horses in April 2012, they have investigated almost 9,000 complaints, which has resulted in providing advice in over 3,000 cases, serving almost 400 improvement notices and seizing over 250 animals.  However, there will be occasions when advice, warnings or formal improvement notices are not appropriate methods of enforcement and, given the extreme nature and severity of some cases or when the owner of the animal fails to act, prosecution is the best action.

It is wrong to say that there has been an insufficient number of prosecutions.  At oral answers to questions on 28 January, the Minister of Justice advised Members that, in the first two years of the 2011 Act, initial figures indicated that there had been 34 convictions for causing unnecessary suffering to animals or for animal fighting, and 49 disqualifications from keeping animals.  I understand that a significant number of cases is being prepared for prosecution by the respective enforcement bodies.  Whilst successful prosecutions can act as a deterrent, it is important to remember that it takes time to prepare such cases and prosecution should only be considered when it is in the public interest.

In closing, I want to assure Members that I am totally committed to protecting and safeguarding animal welfare.  The Welfare of Animals Act protects the welfare of farmed and other animals, including dogs and cats; it provides all the necessary powers for enforcement bodies to take action if animals are suffering or likely to suffer; it provides the same protection for domestic pets and horses as that previously available for farmed animals; and, crucially, it has introduced a duty of care to allow action to be taken to prevent suffering, as opposed to waiting until suffering has occurred.

The Act was introduced very recently, and its implementation continues to bed in.  Whilst I respect the decision of the courts, I am disappointed that, in the recent case, the maximum penalties were not applied.  It is important to understand that the case that triggered the debate was tried by indictment in the Crown Court, which could have imposed up to a two-year custodial sentence and an unlimited fine.   However, the judge did not consider that appropriate.  Therefore, amending the Welfare of Animals Act would not change that type of decision. 

I have explained that I believe that the strong penalties in the Act are a good deterrent and will prevent animal welfare abuses.  If the courts were to utilise fully the available penalties, tough sentences could send out a clear message and deter others from committing similar offences.  Consequently, the general public would be reassured that causing unnecessary suffering, including deliberate acts of cruelty to domestic pets, will not be tolerated and that the perpetrators will be punished appropriately.

While I welcome and support the motion generally today, I believe that we can have a look at how the Act is working in practice.  I am committed to continuing to work with councils to explore whether funding and resources are adequate as we move forward, particularly given RPA.  Work seriously needs to be done to ensure that sentences passed by the courts reflect the severity of the crime and act as a deterrent to others.  Unfortunately, that is outside my remit as Minister.

As I said earlier, I wrote to the Lord Chief Justice to highlight the level of public concern over the issue so that it might encourage the courts to make full use of the range of penalties available for animal welfare offences and, in horrific cases such as that in east Belfast, to apply the maximum penalties possible.  I will continue to encourage the relevant enforcement agencies to publicise widely the action taken against perpetrators of such crimes and the outcomes of such cases.  Go raibh míle maith agat.

Photo of Peter Weir Peter Weir DUP

At the outset, I welcome the support for the motion from all sides of the Chamber.  Although, at times, there has been a slightly different emphasis applied and disagreements over issues at the periphery, that the House has spoken with a united voice is of importance.

Mention was made on a number of occasions of the appalling recent conviction in the Kirkwood case, in which a very lenient sentence was given.  Although explanations have been given as to why that was the case, the conclusion that most people will come to, as was said in the debate, is that, in what seems to be one of the most severe cases that one can possibly imagine, if a custodial sentence is not put in place in such circumstances, under what circumstances will it be?

Mention was made of the legislation, and I will come to that in detail in a moment.  We can have the best legislation in the world, but if it is not properly implemented by judges, and if it does not lead to those who deserve a custodial sentence being given one, we have to question whether the system as a whole is working properly.

In many ways, the appalling —

Photo of Tom Elliott Tom Elliott UUP

I thank the Member for giving way.  Is he suggesting that, in his opinion, the sentences were not appropriate and that the courts are not delivering reasonable sentences?

Photo of Peter Weir Peter Weir DUP

In that case, no, the sentences were not appropriate.  Mention was made of the 2011 Act, which is a good Act.  As part of that, we gave the power for custodial sentences of up to two years, and six months in the Magistrates' Court.  However, in what, by most people's reckoning, was an appalling case of animal cruelty, simply a suspended sentence was given.  If there ever was a case that merited a custodial sentence, that was it. 

What is particularly worrying, and this was mentioned by the proposer of the motion and others, is that that was effectively the first high-profile case taken under the 2011 Act.  Therefore, there is a danger that it will be seen as a precedent for sentencing in similar cases.  Indeed, the argument goes that if a suspended sentence was used in that particular case, perhaps a suspended sentence will be appropriate in another case.  It is sending out the wrong signal.

Concerns over the way in which we have dealt with animal cruelty and a need to tighten up and review the process predate the Kirkwood trial.  Although it helped to prompt the timing of the debate, the motion was tabled by me and others a number of months ago, because there were concerns over the way in which we were moving forward.

I welcome everything that has been said today in the Chamber, but it is important that the Assembly and the Executive do not simply talk the talk but that we walk the walk — or walk the walkies — on the issue.  Therefore, if, as I suspect, there will be unanimous support for a review, I ask that it be wide-reaching in its nature and comprehensive in what it covers and that an open mind has gone into it.  It would be the wrong approach to have a tick-box exercise along the lines of, "Such-and-such has already been dealt with, so we do not really need to consider it".

That being the case, I believe that this breaks down into three categories for the review. 

First, mention has been made of the legislation.  As I indicated, if you consult representatives of the USPCA, for example, they will say that the 2011 legislation was very good.  It raised the tariffs, and many regard it as being up with the best legislation in Europe.  However, from experience, we ask whether there are things that should be added to the legislation.  Mention was made of aggravated cruelty, in particular, by a number of Members.  I believe that there should be an additional tariff and offence for those extreme cases.  I know that there was a little bit of debate, particularly between Mr Wells and Mr Wilson, on the differentiation between cruelty and neglect cases.  There is certainly a grey area where the two can merge.  You can get wilful neglect that can lead to cruelty, and it should cover those circumstances.  There can be a qualitative difference between somebody who has simply neglected an animal, where, perhaps, the intervention should be as much with the person, and someone who has been engaged in cases of gross neglect or gross cruelty.

Photo of Chris Lyttle Chris Lyttle Alliance

I thank the Member for giving way.  Is the Member aware that there are possible aggravating factors of offence in the current guidelines, one of which is gratuitous violence towards the animal?  Is he concerned about how exactly that was applied in this case?

Photo of Peter Weir Peter Weir DUP

Yes, I am concerned about how it was applied in the Kirkwood case.  I appreciate that time is relatively short, but the general position is that we need to look at an additional offence.  I would like to see that addressed in the review.  If the review does not address that properly, it is something that I and others may look to carry forward in a different manner.  We need to look at something.  Mention was made of the Republic of Ireland, for instance, where there is a maximum sentence of five years.  If something of that nature for aggravated cruelty was brought in here — perhaps something that is only chargeable and indictable — it would at least get round some of the problems with the DPP that have been raised.  That is something to be considered.  Essentially, from a legislative point of view, it is about building on good legislation.

Secondly, there is the broad issue of the process and enforcement.  Mention has been made of the extent to which there is funding from the Department of Agriculture of around £800,000 a year, for example.  Maybe this is something that can be dealt with by the councils when they move towards an 11-council model, but, to my mind, there seems to be a degree of mismatch between £800,000 being made available and only nine people being employed to deal with this through the councils.

Photo of William Humphrey William Humphrey DUP

I am grateful to the Member for giving way.  With regard to enforceability and the resources being deployed to deal with the criminal activities of dog fighting and cock fighting, for example, which are underground and much of which is big business for people who are involved in illicit activity, does the Member agree that the full extension of the National Crime Agency to Northern Ireland would give greater resource and help the police, the councils and the USPCA to tackle this?

Photo of Peter Weir Peter Weir DUP 4:45, 31 March 2014

I agree with the Member.  We need to look at whatever resources and opportunities there are, whether that is through additional help through the police — the National Crime Agency or the PSNI — or whether it is ensuring that, where we are getting a transfer of money to councils, as somebody said, we get the best bang for our buck.  I am not entirely convinced that we have that at present.  Enforcement was also raised in the debate.  If we have a situation where, for example, the court makes an order that someone is banned from keeping an animal for a time, we need to ensure that there is the follow-up to make sure that that is put in place.

The final element is sentencing.  As has been mentioned, there have been sentencing guidelines issued in the Magistrates' Court, at least, but the review needs to ensure that those are fit for purpose, that we get the tariffs right and that the guidance is there.  As was indicated, we cannot intervene in individual cases to produce particular results, but we can at least try to ensure that we have the correct framework.  Undoubtedly, what has shocked people most, particularly in the recent case, is what appears to be the reasonably lenient sentencing.  It may well be that there is a level of constraint.  Mr Maginness made reference to that.  If those are the problems, let us examine the way in which that is dealt with to ensure that judges are given a clear indication that we want to see tougher sentencing.

I think that it was Mr Lyttle who quoted Gandhi.  It is often said that the test of the decency of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable.  I extend that further:  from a societal point of view, how we give a voice to the voiceless, particularly abused animals, is a key test of the level of civilisation of this society.  We have to bear down on the evils of animal cruelty.  We cannot ever again see the scenes of jubilation — that, essentially, is what it was — outside a courthouse in Belfast when someone received a sentence for the most heinous crime of animal cruelty and they celebrated the easy punishment they received.

 

Let us send out a clear and united signal today that all these issues need to be properly reviewed and that DARD, the Department of Justice and all of us will work together to ensure that the proper protection is put in place for animals.  Although it may be a vicious minority that inflicts such cruelty, it must be overcome.  Let us send out the signal that, if no one else will do it, this House will be the voice for the voiceless.  I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly notes with concern the number of cases of extreme animal cruelty that have occurred recently, the low number of convictions and the failure to impose the maximum sentence available; and calls on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, in conjunction with the Minister of Justice, to initiate a review of the implementation of animal cruelty legislation, particularly sentencing guidelines and practices, to ensure that the maximum effectiveness is being brought to bear to combat these crimes.