On 24th November 2025, A-Law was delighted to host a panel discussion on the current status of animal law for our friends and members. We took this opportunity to step back from the day to day work to consider how the movement has evolved towards better law and enforcement for animals. A-Law was established 21 years ago, and with the transition of leadership following Paula Spark’s tragic departure, it seemed like an important time to reflect on where we’ve got to and where we need to go from here.
We were lucky enough to be led by an expert panel each representing a different part of the sector: with Libby Anderson acting as discussant, we were joined by Sonul Badiani-Hamment (public policy), Mike Radford OBE (academia) and David Thomas (judiciary).
The panel, and subsequent networking over drinks, was made possible thanks to the generosity of Simmons and Simmons, for which we are very grateful.
A synopsis of the panel discussion
The panellists were realistic about the challenges ahead, with a wide-ranging discussion and mixed views on the success of initiatives to date. Below is a synthesis of some of the key issues raised:
1.Extent of suffering and reason for acceptability
The first animal protection law passed in the UK was in 1822[1], and one might expect that this would have led to improved treatment of animals. Yet the scale of animal suffering today is exponentially greater and continues to expand, despite greater awareness of animal sentience. Some of the key factors are technology, the lack of public visibility of intensive farming, and the increased international trade in animals.
There is a lack of alignment between the laws protecting humans compared to animals. Human suffering is established to be wrong per se. When animals suffer, a utilitarian argument is always made, i.e. the animal suffering is weighed against human interest, eg. commercial considerations. Piecemeal alterations to legislation don’t address this core philosophical point.
2.Government’s approach
Recent approaches by government have been fragmented, without a long term plan, and little in the way of accountability mechanisms to ensure that regulations are implemented, monitored and enforced.
Scientific researchers on animal welfare need to be better linked to practical application and engagement with policy-makers and there is scope for lawyers to assist in bridging this gap. In theory the Animal Sentience Committee established by the Sentience Act[2] should facilitate this. In practice there is a view that it is less effective than it could be. It is felt that the Committee selects “easy” topics to address and could be encouraged to scrutinise more controversial issues. For example, fish were arguably better protected in law from 1911 to 2006, when fisheries and angling were excluded from the AWA 2006[3] (likely because of industry intervention), and the Committee could have sought to change this significant gap. There were mixed opinions in this area, it being noted that the 2025 report on whether the government has all due regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings in its legislative compliance and enforcement[4] was good but has not yet led to any direct measures being taken by government. One approach could be to introduce an animal welfare commissioner situated across government and independent of DEFRA.
It is widely accepted that local authorities are inadequately resourced (both in terms of finance and expertise) to carry out effective enforcement. There are also limitations on career paths, such that animal welfare experts can only achieve career advancement by entering a management track. With councils being restructured over the next 12 months, there is likely to be even less capacity to focus on animal welfare. In Scotland for example, research has shown that local authorities say they are administering animal welfare laws (ie issuing licences etc) but are not enforcing them as required in the legislation. In a recent Humane League case[5] the court said DEFRA had no duty to take a position on whether animals were being farmed in an unlawful way, because it was for local authorities to enforce, but in reality, for councils it is low priority and complicated. This case has made it harder to challenge DEFRA, a disappointing development.
On the question of effectiveness of the AWA, and the notion that it should be abandoned as unfit for purpose, the panellists generally agreed that it was easier to amend rather than start again, and that the core provisions are still relevant and enable animal protection. However there was a consensus that it requires updating, including in relation to enforcement mechanisms. It was noted that the positive duty of care is more useful in a domestic context than in farming, as the balance of ‘unnecessary suffering’ vs human interests always comes into play with farming.
3.Looking forward
One of the challenges is that once a technological or other type of farming practice becomes widely used, it becomes entrenched and “accepted”, such that the balance of unnecessary suffering routinely weighs on the side of economic interest, and it then becomes very difficult to overturn that view. The courts are typically reluctant to determine that an entire farming practice is in breach of the law if it affects the whole sector and the issue may be deflected to Parliament. With rapid changes currently underway, eg AI, it’s essential to influence at the earliest stages to protect animal welfare before undesirable practices become entrenched.
It was observed that one of the most powerful campaigning tools is to demonstrate a positive and successful example from elsewhere in the world, and the animal protection community could assist with making these connections.
There was a consensus that judges could generally benefit from a greater understanding of legal obligations towards animals.
The movement could make stronger use of Freedom of Information (FOI) tools to access information to be used for campaigning.
There were mixed views on whether the movement should be taking more cases to court. In some ways it is an opportunity, with the possibility of protective costs orders, as litigation has been used less than by other movements (eg environmental campaigners). Others felt it is not the responsibility of NGOs to bring prosecutions, as this allows the government to shirk its existing responsibilities, with even the RSPCA trying to reduce its commitments in prosecutions.
It was proposed that specialist animal welfare and environmental courts could be established.
It was clear from the discussions that there is still much work to be done to improve the lives of animals, though it is extremely encouraging to see the depth of interest, knowledge and commitment to this important and expanding area of law.
[1] Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act, often referred to as “Martin’s Act”
[2] Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022
[3] Animal Welfare Act 2006
[4] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/animal-sentience-committee-report-on-the-due-regard-to-animal-welfare-legislative-compliance-and-enforcement
[5] R (on the application of the Humane League UK) v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs
Recent Comments