The palgrave international handbook of a 104

94

A. Nurse

However, UK legislation in the form of the Animal Welfare Act 2006
subtly shifts the anthropocentric position in respect of non-human companions by imposing a duty of care towards such companions. The UK Animal
Welfare Acts3 consider companion animals (non-human animals living in
human homes such as dogs and cats) to be protected animals that are legally
considered to be ‘owned’ or cared for by a ‘responsible’ person. This includes
somebody who has accepted some form of obligation to look after them,
even if that only means putting out food. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is
part of UK criminal law, creating new offences in respect of failure to
adequately care for non-human companions (Nurse and Ryland 2014).
Schaffner (2011) identifies the UK as having one of the strongest traditions
of anti-cruelty laws although a duty of care towards non-human animals
exists in various forms within US state anti-cruelty and welfare statutes. The
Animal Welfare Act 2006, however, retains the offence of causing unnecessary suffering from previous legislation but considerably refines its scope to
incorporate both the active and passive nature of an offence (discussed later).
Nurse and Ryland (2013) argue that contemporary law provides for a
number of ways in which neglect caused by keeping too many animals or
keeping animals in poor conditions is actionable. For example adverse animal
conditions could constitute a nuisance subject to enforcement action by a
local authority and/or the Magistrates court in the UK. The UK
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA) defines nuisance as an act or
omission resulting in ‘unacceptable interference with the personal comfort or
amenity of neighbours or the nearby community’ (Section 79 of the Act).
Noise and odour can constitute a statutory nuisance, thus keeping too many
animals with consequential noise or odour problems caused to neighbours
would constitute enforceable environmental health problems. Local authorities have a duty to investigate and detect any statutory nuisances occurring
within their jurisdiction as part of their environmental health obligations.
UK legislation and case law also defines nuisance in particular contexts

containing specific reference to ‘any animal kept in such a place or manner
as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance’ (Section 79 (1)(f) of the EPA
1990)4. Schaffner (2011, pp. 120–121) similarly notes the public health,
safety and welfare concerns of animal neglect in US law, commenting on
contrasting challenges to ‘pet limit’ laws in Pennsylvania and Minnesota.
4

While the intention of the Act is likely to protect human health, it is worth noting that harm caused to
the health of a non-human animal might constitute a nuisance on a strict reading of sections 78 and 79.
Section 78 talks about harm in terms of harm to ‘living organisms’ and does not specifically refer to
human harm.