When can the courts rule on the legality of future behaviour?

4 August 2015 by

toad_white_natterjackKent & others v Arun District Council and others [2015] EWHC 2295 – read judgment

Iain O’Donnell of 1COR acted for the Council in this case: he played no part in the writing of this post.

This case concerned the application of the law in relation to future conduct, in particular, the role of the judicial review procedure in determining what precisely is meant by the prohibition on the selling of live animals under the Pet Animals Act 1951.

This is a detailed statutory provision inspired by welfare and conservation concerns. It has a complicated legislative history, and essentially the judge hearing the application was being asked to decide whether certain future activities might be caught by it.

For the record, the statute was introduced to protect the welfare of animals sold as pets. It requires any person keeping a pet shop to be licensed by the local council, which will only license such a business if they are satisfied as to the suitability of the accommodation, nutrition and safety of the animals concerned. Section 2 bans the selling of animals in the street, including on barrows and markets.

Councils are responsible for enforcing the law in this area.

Background facts

In brief, the claimants, a local reptile and amphibian society, had arranged a meeting at a privately owned racecourse. They subsequently received notification from the owners that the meeting was to be cancelled at the behest of Arun District Council. The council referred to “a substantial risk of unlawful activity taking place at the scheduled event”, in other words, the unlicensed selling “in the course of a business” of animals as “pets in any part of a street or public place”, which is a criminal offence under Section 2 of the Act.

The Animal Protection Agency, intervening in these proceedings, had intimated to the local authority that they were concerned about the impermissible sale of animals at other similar events. They provided substantive evidence to the court that such sales were taking place at previous similar shows.

The breeders’ society sought an order to quash the Council’s decision on the following grounds –

a. That the council had no power to prohibit or procure the cancellation of the event,

b. Whether or not criminal offences are committed at such an event was a matter for a criminal court to determine and the Council had no pre-emptive powers and

c. The Council had been wrong to form the view that offences might have been committed.

Permission to proceed with the application was refused.

Reasoning behind the decision

McGowan  J acknowledged that the Council, as a public body, had a duty to do what it properly could to prevent the commission of offences by legitimate means. Warning an organisation such as the racecourse that its premises might be hosting an event at which unlawful activity might take place was “an entirely proper course to have taken.”

Whilst it was not for the court to decide that there had indeed been unlawful activity at earlier events, it was fair to reach the conclusion on the evidence that the Council had acted reasonably and properly in fearing that there was a substantial risk that such activity might occur. On the material available this was a reasonable conclusion to have reached; in any event it was not arguably so unreasonable as to be the proper subject of review.

In answer to the intervener’s argument that as part of its determination of the claim, the court should interpret s. 2 of the Pet Animals Act, the judge stressed that  judicial review was not the normal route for a determination of criminal behaviour. She referred to the words of Walker J in the most recent authority on the matter,  (R (Haynes) v Stafford Borough Council [2006] EWHC 1366 (Admin).

the High Court has jurisdiction to make a declaration as to whether a criminal offence has been committed or may be committed in the future, but it is only to be exercised in exceptional circumstances.

The court should adopt an essentially flexible approach to the exercise of its declaratory jurisdiction in this field. The only rigid rule is that once criminal proceedings have begun the civil courts should not intervene. That said, other things being equal, criminal disputes, even upon pure issues of law, are best decided in criminal courts and between the parties most directly affected by their outcome.

Whilst the judge recognised the importance of the issues to the parties in this case, she was not prepared to grant the declaration sought. She understood the need for greater clarification to be made out in relation to the Pet Act, but this was not an occasion for the court to determine an act to be criminal which may not currently be in breach of the criminal law. She did suggest that efforts to persuade Parliament to “revisit this topic” could be reviewed.

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


  1. daveyone1 says:

    Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..

  2. Roger Nield says:

    Reblogged this on Simple Things.

  3. curi56 says:

    Reblogged this on spiritandanimal.wordpress.com.

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries 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 sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: