C and T v Attorney General

• Jurisdiction: Jersey
• Court: Juvenile Appeal Court (Jersey)
• Judge: Crill, Bailiff and Mr. A. Le Maistre, Kinnard and Mrs. J. Le Brun:
• Judgment Date: 21 April 1994
• Date: 21 April 1994

JUVENILE APPEAL COURT

Crill, Bailiff and Mr. A. Le Maistre, Kinnard and Mrs. J. Le Brun:

S. Slater for the first appellant;

P. Landick for the second appellant;

S.C.K. Pallot, Crown Advocate, for the Attorney General.

Case cited:

(1) Lewis v. Fermor (1887), 18 Q.B.D. 532; 56 L.T. 236; 3 T.L.R. 449; 56 L.J.M.C. 45; 16 Cox, C.C. 176; 35 W.R. 378; 51 J.P. Jo. 371, dicta of Day, J. applied.

Legislation construed:

Protection of Animals (Jersey) Law 1980, art. 2(1): The relevant terms of this paragraph are set out at page 135, lines 29-36.

Protection of Animals Act 1911 (1 & 2 Geo. V, c.27), s.1(1): The relevant terms of this sub-section are set out at page 137, lines 6-7.

Texts cited:

Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed., vol. 2 (Original Issue), para. 385, at 178.

Words & Phrases legally defined, 3rd ed., at 383 (1988).

Animals—cruelty to animals—causing of pain—cattle "worried" within Protection of Animals (Jersey) Law 1980, art. 2(1)(a) if made ill at ease—extent of suffering irrelevant to conviction but relevant to sentence

Animals—cruelty to animals—cruelty—worrying of animals done "cruelly" within Protection of Animals (Jersey) Law 1980, art. 2(1)(a) if done with no legitimate purpose or justification—"cruelly" denotes mens rea of offence

The appellants were charged in the Juvenile Court with worrying or terrifying cattle contrary to art. 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals (Jersey) Law 1980.

The appellants, both juveniles, each fired pellets from an air pistol (of which they did not know the range) at a herd of cattle some distance away. This caused the cattle to move away in alarm, although it was not clear that any of them had been hit. The appellants admitted having aimed to hit them and to having done so merely for enjoyment. They were subsequently convicted of having "cruelly ... worrie[d] ... any animal" contrary to art. 2(1)(a) of the Protection of Animals (Jersey) Law 1980 and were sentenced accordingly.

On appeal, they submitted, inter alia, that the offence had not been established since the word "worries" in art. 2(1)(a) had to be considered in conjunction with the other words of the sub-paragraph, all of which implied causing pain and suffering, which had not happened and in any case, they had not intended to be cruel.

The Crown submitted that the appellants had clearly worried the cattle and that the use of the word "cruelly" in art. 2(1)(a) merely set out the mens rea required for the offence, which had been established.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The use of the word "cruelly" in art. 2(1)(a) of the 1980 Law denoted the mens rea required to establish the offence. The appellants had acted cruelly in that their actions had had no legitimate purpose and could not be justified (page 136, line 45 - page 137, line 24).

(2) The appellants had clearly "worried" the cattle by their actions in that the cattle had been made...