animal rights

Baboons in trouble – again

4 November 2025 by Rosalind English

Readers of this Blog may think that I’m going through a bit of a simian crisis. And that would be understandable; perhaps I am. But close on the news about baboon trapping (my previous post on these animals) comes a different story, one that reflects our very complicated and hypocritical approach to wild animals and what we perceive to be appropriate protections for them under the law.

Who doesn’t love a goldfinch, or a hedgehog? Or a cheetah, bounding through the African dust? We all do!

Who loves a baboon? Nobody! Apart from South Africa’s equivalent of our RSPCA, or the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA), which is at the centre of the following story, recently highlighted by the Daily Maverick, South Africa’s only independent newspaper.

I would urge readers to read the DM article first. The author, investigative environental journalist Adam Cruise, urges us to attend to the wider story.

This isn’t just about baboons in the Stormberg region. It’s a mirror on our relationship with our wildlife heritage. South Africa is home to a unique biodiversity. If indigenous primates are abandoned, sanctuaries collapse and killing is proposed as a solution, how can we claim to be custodians of our wildlife?

In this post I will attempt to disentangle some legal themes from the story which powerfully illustrates the inconsistency in legal protections afforded to different wild animal species, and exposes the structural problems within that country’s animal welfare and environmental law regimes.

Before reading on, be aware that there are 39 chacma baboons abandoned on a farm near Burgersdorp in the Eastern Cape, stranded after their sanctuary was dissolved by government fiat. The farm owner, whose property the animals occupy, requested their removal because the permit had lapsed. The provincial authority reportedly suggested that the animals be killed within 72 hours, and offered the “cost-effective” option that the landowner “open the cages, chase the animals out and have a competent hunter dispatch the animals as humanely as possible”. I put up a picture of a cute baby baboon because people tend to recoil from the adult version.

The problem of ritual slaughter

28 October 2025 by Guest Contributor

Anna Sergeant and Julia Hartley

This is an extract from an article published in the latest edition of The Critic, 17th October 2025. We post it here by kind permission of its authors and editors of The Critic.

In 2024, approximately 220 million animals were ritually slaughtered in England and Wales. Of these, roughly 30 million had their throats slit whilst fully conscious, and 190 million were stunned unconscious before being killed.

The Welfare at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015 (“WATOK”) require that animals be effectively stunned before slaughter, in order to spare them “avoidable pain, distress or suffering” when they are killed. In its next breath, however, WATOK authorises the very practice it condemns (non-stun slaughter) where it is “in accordance with religious rites”.

Non-stun slaughter entails atrocious violence which all major animal welfare bodies, including the British Veterinary Association and RSPCA, agree should be prohibited. The failure of Parliament to make a decision about the normative value of animal welfare has left a gaping statutory hole that defers the fate of animals’ final moments to the whim of religious authority.

First commercial onshore salmon farm given the go ahead despite animal welfare concerns

6 June 2025 by Rosalind English

R (on the application of Animal Equality UK v North East Lincolnshire Borough Council and ASL New Lee Ltd [2025] EWHC 1331 (Admin)

This was an application for judicial review brought by an animal welfare charity challenging North East Lincolnshire Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the UK’s first full commercial scale onshore salmon farm proposed by AquaCultured Seafood Ltd. The farm, to be built in Cleethorpes, is designed to produce 5,000 tonnes of salmon per year.

The High Court had dismissed the application on paper in March 2025. However it was subsequently decided that Animal Equality’s challenge could proceed on the grounds that there was an arguable case that North East Lincolnshire Council’s planning officers had misdirected the Planning Committee by advising that animal welfare concerns could not be considered as material planning considerations under planning law. This potential misdirection raised a legal question about whether the approval of the salmon farm was lawful, warranting a full judicial review of the decision.

Arguments before the court

Animal Equality highlighted risks of welfare issues, such as the pain and suffering felt by animals kept in highly packed units, being eaten alive by sea lice; mass fish deaths including cannibalism and other problems such as high effluent levels in recirculating aquaculture systems. They referred to the deaths of 1.5 million fish at another onshore facility due to electricity supply interruptions. The Claimant did not seek to persuade the Court that the committee were required to take animal welfare concerns into account, rather that they should properly have been advised that it was open for them to do so if they wished to. They maintained that the Council’s planning committee members had been materially misled in relation to animal welfare concerns when the committee was advised that it could not take animal welfare concerns into account.

Legal protection for animals is in our interests – Kimberly Moore

22 March 2024 by Guest Contributor

Science tells us that animals are social and sentient creatures, that they experience the world much like we do. But the law treats them very differently. Despite some progress, animals remain inadequately protected, and they can suffer in entertainment, research, farming, and conflicts.

The interconnectedness of humans, animals and the environment is recognised by the World Health Organisation, and the body of scientific work into intelligence in the animal kingdom continues to grow: the songs of Humpback whales are passed down through generations; crows and ravens are renowned for their exceptional problem-solving skills; elephants display empathy and emotional sensitivity; chimpanzees and orangutans exhibit complex tool use; dolphins engage in sophisticated vocalisations and coordinated behaviours. 

Strasbourg Court dismisses challenges to bans on ritual slaughter without stunning for Halal and Kosher meat

14 February 2024 by Rosalind English

Belgian Muslims and others v Belgium (Application no.s 166760/22 and 10 others)

This is a rare case involving the welfare of non-human animals balanced against the rights in the Convention. In the Court’s own words, “this is the first time that the Court has had to rule on the question of whether the protection of animal welfare can be linked to one of the aims referred to in paragraph 2 of the Article 9 of the Convention.” Thank you to Joshua Rozenberg for alerting me to this important ruling.

In his Concurring Opinion Judge Yüksel gives a useful brief description of what was at stake here.

“The case concerns decrees promulgated under Belgian domestic law which require, in the interests of animal welfare, stunning prior to the slaughter of animals. The applicants, who are of Muslim or Jewish faith, claim that the prior stunning in question would prevent them from carrying out ritual slaughter in accordance with the precepts of their religion, which would constitute an interference and therefore a violation of their right to respect for their religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention

… At the heart of the case are therefore two questions: i) whether considerations linked to animal welfare can constitute a legitimate aim for the purposes of Article 9 § 2 of the Convention and ii) whether the contested measure did not actually go beyond what is necessary in a democratic society.” [para 3 of the Opinion]

The full judgment is available only in French. A summary of the salient points follows.

The proposed laws under attack

The slaughter of food animals without prior stunning has been banned in a number of countries signatory to the Convention, in the interests of animal welfare. However, both Jewish and Islamic rituals require maximum bleeding of the animal for the resultant carcass to satisfy the requirements of religious laws. Moreover, both rituals require the animal to be healthy and in good condition at the time of slaughter, and to die as a result of blood loss. But scientific research has shown that the fear that stunning would have a negative impact on bleeding is unfounded. “Electronarcosis” (see image above) is a reversible (non-lethal) stunning method that is possible for some smaller species of food animals (pigs, sheep and goats). This means that if the throat is cut immediately after this stunning method, the animal has indeed died solely of blood loss.

Canis Lupus in agro hominis

20 February 2020 by Rosalind English

If your domestic mutt makes friends with a wolf, and is prepared to eat and play with this visitor from the wild in your garden, does that deprive said wolf of the protection of the EU rules on the protection of listed species? AG Kokott at the European Court of Justice has just handed down her opinion on this tricky question of conservation referred to the Court.

Background law

The Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora calls for the introduction of a system of strict protection for species, such as the wolf (Canis lupus), which are listed in Annex IV(a) thereto. However, must that system of protection also be applied in the case where a wolf plays with dogs in a village? That is the question that has been put to the Court in these proceedings. As the AG continues

Even in its specific form, that question may be of greater practical importance than one might think.  The answer to it will be decisive above all, however, in determining whether the substantively extensive protection of species provided for in the Habitats Directive is primarily relevant to natural and semi-natural areas, that is to say, in particular, to activities such as agriculture, forestry and hunting, or whether it is to be taken into account without restriction in all human activities, such as the operation of roads.

You only have to think about this for a few seconds before realising the far reaching implications of the latter interpretation.

Proposed ban on ivory is lawful – including antiques

12 November 2019 by Rosalind English

R (on the application of) Friends of Antique Cultural Treasures Ltd v Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – read judgment

“We believe that the legal market presents opportunities for criminals to launder recently poached ivory as old ivory products.” (Defra’s statement in consultation in introducing the Ivory Bill)

The Ivory Act 2018, which received Royal Assent in December 2018, proposes to prohibit ivory dealing with very limited exceptions. This includes antique items made with ivory. According to the Government, the Act contains “one of the world’s toughest bans on ivory sales”. No date has yet been fixed for it to become law.

The purpose of the Act is to enhance the protection of African and Asian elephants in the face of ongoing threats to their survival. It does so by prohibiting the sale, as opposed to the retention, of all ivory (that is, anything made out of or containing ivory), subject to a very limited and tightly defined exemptions. These prohibitions are backed by criminal and civil sanctions.

The claimant company represented UK dealers in antique worked ivory such as Chinese fans, walking canes with sculpted ivory tops and furniture with ivory inlay. The appeal of these items is not confined to Sinologist antiquarians. Netsuke, smaller carved ornaments worn as part of Japanese traditional dress, are an example. Even for the non connoisseur, Edmund de Waal’s novel The Hare with the Amber Eyes is a celebration of the significance and aura that these ornaments bestow on their owners, not just for the carving, but for the material of which they are made. Religious, hierarchical, magical, and even medicinal.

Pet Shock Collar Ban (Part 2)

2 November 2019 by Rosalind English

Back in 2010 Catriona Murdoch wrote about the High Court’s decision that a Welsh ban on the use of collars designed to administer electric shocks to cats and dogs did not breach Article 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR or impinge upon the free movement of goods protected under European Union Law. I followed with a comment on the status of animal welfare in EU law here.

Any pet owner living near a busy road or with less than adequate fencing will be aware of the availability of an electronic containment system which prevents animals escaping by administering a shock via a collar, a system to which they become conditioned by the warning of a radio signal as they approach the boundary. Hand-held e-collar devices are different in that the shock can be administered anywhere and at any time at the whim of the animal’s owner.

Who’s afraid of the big bad wolf?

22 August 2019 by Rosalind English

The Finns are, or so it appears from a recent referral to the European Court of Justice: Case C‑674/17.

Man up, Finns! That is the AG’s advice. The Habitats Directive allows of no derogation from the protection of species obligation that does not come up with a satisfactory alternative. Furthermore it must be shown that any derogation does not worsen the conservation status of that species.

Whatever the CJEU decides, the opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe makes for fascinating reading, going to the heart of the conservation problem. As human populations spread, how to secure the preservation of wild species, particularly carnivores?

What will happen to Justice

2 April 2019 by Rosalind English

… the horse? In September last year a County Court judge in Washington, Oregon, threw out a case for lack of standing. The claim (Justice vs Gwendolyn Vercher Case 18CV17601) was filed in the name of an eight year old quarter horse whose abuse at the hands of his owner had led to a conviction and fine for animal neglect.

In March 2017 the horse — then known as Shadow —was found emaciated and with a prolapsed penis that was swollen “red raw” and “oozing serum” as a result of frostbite. He was 300lb (136kg) underweight and also suffering from lice and rain scald having been left without adequate food or shelter throughout the winter. Although his owner agreed to pay the horse’s veterinary expenses up to the date of conviction, the equine charity maintain that the injuries he has suffered will require “special and expensive medical care for the rest of his life” and are a barrier to finding the horse a new home.

Animal transport: where are we now with EU law?

18 February 2019 by Rosalind English

MAS Group Holdings Ltd and others, R (on the application of) v Barco De Vapor B.V. and others [2019] EWHC 158 (Admin), 4 February 2019

As a matter of policy, the UK government is committed to improving the welfare of all animals, or so we are given to understand. In this little-covered ruling, we see that the responsible authorities are trying to do what they can to alleviate the suffering of farm animals enduring transport for slaughter:

[The government] would prefer to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production and thus trade in meat is preferable to a trade based on the transport of live animals. Whilst it recognises the United Kingdom’s responsibilities whilst remaining a member of the EU, it will be looking to take early steps to control the export of live animals for slaughter as the UK moves towards a new relationship with Europe.

Livestock transport has been a controversial subject in the UK for many years. Efforts by public authorities to reduce or mitigate the movement or export of live animals have hitherto foundered on the rocks of free movement of goods (see my post on TFEU Article 35). Despite the ethical controversy, the current position is that long distance transport of nonhuman animals for slaughter is lawful (Barco de Vapor BV v Thanet District Council [2015] Bus LR 593.)  

A weed is a plant in the wrong place

29 September 2017 by Rosalind English

... and pests are misplaced animals. We are all too familiar with the stories of mayhem caused by urban foxes released into the countryside, and the collapse in property value where Japanese knotweed is found to have invaded. The perpetrators of such damage are rarely identified and brought to account. So it is with a level of glee that the prosecution of two “Buddhist activists” has been reported in the media after they released nearly a thousand alien crustaceans off the coast of Brighton.

“Banker” Ni Li and “estate agent” Zhixong Li bought the live American lobsters and Dungeness crabs from a London fish merchant, hired three boats from Brighton Marina and cast the animals adrift as part of a religious ceremony, fangsheng, which is understood to be the cause of many ecosystem disruptions in Asia.

This short story is so replete with topical issues it is hard to know where to begin.

Continue reading →

Jackson LJ on costs in all judicial reviews: Aarhus rules to apply

31 July 2017 by David Hart KC

Review of Fixed Recoverable Costs: Supplemental Report, 31 July 2017 – here

Jackson LJ is still toiling away at costs issues some 8 years after his main report. The original report changed the whole way in which the civil courts go about working how much, if anything, is due from one side to another at the end of a case – budgets being one key element. The main part of this new report concerns extending fixed costs further.

This post is about something different, judicial review. Rather different factors may come into play when you are challenging public authorities. You may have a direct financial or other interest in the outcome, or you may just think that the law needs properly enforcing against those authorities. It does not follow that the winner should recover costs on the same rules as elsewhere in the civil system. And Jackson LJ returns to the question of costs in this context in Chapter 10 of his report.

Since 2013, things have been different in the area of environmental judicial reviews. With substantial prods from the EU, things are now better off for claimants, though recent reforms have sought to put further obstacles in the way of claimants: see my post here.

So it is refreshing to read something from a very senior judge which recognises the true value of judicial review as a whole and why the costs rules need adjusting in this area for the benefit of claimants.

Continue reading →

One trade freedom we could do without

28 June 2016 by Rosalind English

Supporters of Brexit and campaigners for animal welfare are not natural bedfellows. And indeed my quick poll of the intuitive reaction to Thursday’s vote revealed anxiety about a future race to the bottom in terms of welfare standards as European regulations are unpicked and new trade deals are carved out, whether with individual member states of the EU, the European Union as a whole, or under the surveillance of the WTO. (But here’s a call for action: https://action.ciwf.org.uk/ea-action/action?)ea.client.id=119&ea.campaign.id=53173&ea.tracking.id=98b15a7c&utm_campaign=transport&utm_source=ciwftw&utm_medium=twitter

Which is why it is critical at this moment to remember that the obstacle in the way of this country reviewing its participation in the trade in live animals is one of the pillars of the EU Treaty: free movement of goods. Animals are regarded as goods, and any measure adopted by a member state government interfering with the movement of livestock within the single market and beyond its borders with its trading partners has been prohibited as a “quantitative restriction” on exports. When we are eventually free of this overarching prohibition, no time should be lost in grasping the opportunity to alter our laws in recognition of humane standards in animal husbandry.

Some Background: veal crates and the port protests in the 1990s

Just at the time when the red carpet was being rolled out for the Human Rights Act, campaigners for the rights of non human animals had their eye on a much more difficult task: persuading the government that shipments of young calves to veal crates across the Channel defeated our hard-won animal welfare laws and were in breach of the EU’s own proclaimed animal protection measures. The practice of rearing veal for the popular white meat involves confining a week old calf in a box for five months until slaughter. The well respected farm animal charity Compassion in World Farming managed to convince the UK courts that they not only had standing but an arguable case that this export trade breached the domestic prohibition on the veal crate system as well as the relevant EU Convention and Recommendation. CIWF contended that the UK government had power under Community law

to restrict the export of veal calves to other Member States where the system described above was likely to be used, contrary to the standards in force in the United Kingdom and the international standards laid down by the Convention to which all the Member States and the Community had agreed to adhere….

the export of calves to face rearing contrary to the Convention is considered to be cruel and immoral by animal welfare organisations and a considerable body of public opinion, supported by authoritative scientific veterinary opinion, in the Member State from which exports occur.

In fact the EU rules merely contained stipulations as to the minimum width of veal crates and the composition of veal calves’ diets.
Continue reading →

Latest twist on standard of review in Aarhus cases

3 May 2016 by David Hart KC

R (o.t.a. Dilner) v. Sheffield City Council [2016] EWHC 945 (Admin), Gilbart J, 27 April 2016, read judgment

A quick note on the latest Aarhus Convention point to come before the domestic courts.

In November 2015, I posted on the decision by Ouseley J in McMorn here that a gamekeeper’s challenge fell within the scope of Aarhus, and that as a result there should be a more intense scrutiny of the underlying merits of the claim than would typically be allowed under domestic public law principles.

The current case bears on the standard of review point. Mr Dilner and other environmental campaigners challenged the tree-felling policies of Sheffield City Council, and one of his arguments was that tree-felling required an environmental assessment under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. This environmental claim fell within the protections conferred by the Aarhus Convention, and hence, it was said, required such an intense scrutiny. Mr Dilner relied upon Ouseley J’s reasoning.

Gilbart J robustly rejected the argument, and did not follow Ouseley J’s ruling.

Continue reading →