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
