The 1911 Act is the most widely used piece of legislation under which the RSPCA prosecutes offences of animal cruelty. In 1999 the RSPCA obtained some 2,2364 convictions under the existing legislation, 987 in relation to dogs and 329 in relation to cats.

But the Act, protecting domestic and captive animals in England and Wales, is almost 100 years old and the RSPCA believes it is in urgent need of review. Much of its language is out of date – sections referring to animal pounds, dog-drawn vehicles and knackers are redundant.

What the RSPCA wants

The RSPCA does not want to radically reform the 1911 Act but wants a workable piece of legislation to give greater protection to animals. It should not be so controversial that it would be difficult to become law. A new or revised act should do the following things.

Include an offence of likely to cause unnecessary suffering. Under the 1911 Act a prosecution can only be brought if there is evidence an animal has suffered. The RSPCA, along with many other animal welfare organisations, regularly receives complaints about animals kept in unacceptable conditions. But it cannot rtake action until suffering has taken place, which may not be immediately.

Define suffering in a wider context to include pain and/or the impairment of an animal’s natural physical, social or emotional development. Currently, suffering is interpreted narrowly and animals kept in restricted or unnatural circumstances may not be considered to be suffering. The amendment should protect animals such as those tethered without access to shelter, food or water.

Clarify police powers, which under the 1911 Act are unclearly worded. Police have no power to get a warrant to enter premises if they reasonably suspect cruelty to animals. Even if, for example, police believe an animal is suffering they cannot do anything unless the owner of the premises permits access. This can take months of negotiation, during which the animal continues to suffer. The RSPCA believes this must be addressed.

Make provision for the care of animals owned by people deemed, by the court, as unfit to stand trial. The RSPCA prosecutes as a last resort (less than one per cent of all complaints received). But where a person is considered unfit to stand trial by the court and refuses to relinquish ownership of the animal, the Society has no choice but to leave the animal with them. The RSPCA believes if the court decides a person is not capable of standing trial, they are also not capable of caring for animals, so the court should have the power to make an order for the animal’s care.

Clarify disqualification orders. At the moment there is no definition of ‘custody of animals’. There is a disqualification from having custody of an animal but it does not prevent another family member from continuing to own animals kept by the disqualified person. RSPCA inspectors receive constant complaints when disqualified people continue to keep animals in what appears to be a breach of the court order. A definition of the term ‘custody’ should include the control over or responsibility for the animal either on a temporary or permanent basis.

Widen the courts’ power to confiscate animals. Under the 1911 Act the courts have the power to confiscate an animal from a convicted person but the confiscation is linked to ownership. The RSPCA believes the legislation should be amended to include a person who has the day – to – day care or control of the animal. This issue proved a major problem in the Crown Prosecution Service Chipperfield case, where a company rather than an individual owned the animals.

Provide the power to create codes of practice. The RSPCA believes these could be of benefit particularly in relation to specific issues such as tethering or keeping exotic pets. Although breaches of codes would not be criminal offences, they may provide evidence of offences under the cruelty legislation.

Give extended cut-off dates for prosecution. In some cases, information about cruelty does not come to the attention of the RSPCA until months later, when it is too late to prosecute. The RSPCA believes it should be possible to bring prosecution within six months of the offence coming to light, provided it is not longer than two years after it was committed.