Electric shock collar ban has bite

19 July 2011 by

When the Welsh Assembly voted to ban the use of the electronic training collar, which works by emitting an electric stimulus when the dog goes near a forbidden object like a fence, the main opponents of the ban the Electronic Collar Manufacturers’ Association were quick to take judicial review proceedings against the Welsh lawmakers.

They alleged that the ban was in breach of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to enjoyment of possessions and property) and the prohibitions in Articles 34 and 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibit restrictions to free trade.

They were unsuccessful in their bid to disqualify the ban and we posted an analysis of the case and the issues it raised. Since this post has attracted over three thousand hits since its publication, we feel it only right to follow it up with this story of the first prosecution under the ban.

Phillip Pook, 48, from the Vale of Glamorgan, bought one of these collars before their use became illegal and continued using it after  the Animal Welfare (Electronic Collars (Wales)) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/934) came in to effect in March 2010. He was fined £2,000 by the magistrates and had to pay another £1,000 in costs.

The prosecution told magistrates that Mr Pook had been warned in April 2010 that these sorts of collars were illegal in Wales, although they are allowed in England. Use of the collars is to be debated in Hollyrood and Westminster.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Related posts

2 comments


  1. Dave Boardman says:

    Totaly against a ban,Obviously the owner of the spaniel above had the collar set at to higher level. The whole idea is to set the level of stimulus to a point that is just high enough to gain the attention of the dog. If it wasnt for these collars my dogs (Head strong terriers) would more than likley be dead now. Its all very well saying all dogs can be trained by the rewards methods,but I disagree,you try getting 3 terriers to come back to you when all they want to do is run free.These collars are no more harmfull than a TENS machine when used by responsible owners. Dave.

  2. Penny Bateman says:

    As someone who has seen an electric shock collar in action here in Woodleigh, I would like to endorse the ban 100%!
    Seeing the spaniel jumping and throwing itself around and hearing it shrieking in pain, I cannot understand why they were ever legal.
    I told the lady concerned that if I ever saw her using it again, I would call the RSPCA and thankfully, she has stopped using it.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: