Factual and Procedural Background
On 7 August 2025, after pleading guilty in the Magistrates' Court, the Applicant was committed to the Crown Court for sentence for one offence of causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal under sections 4(1) and 32(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. [Para 27]
On 23 February 2026, Judge Gold sentenced the Applicant to two years' imprisonment and made a ten-year disqualification order from contact with animals under section 34 of the Act; the Applicant was 20 at the time of the offence and 22 at sentencing. [Para 28][Para 55]
The Applicant's co-defendant pleaded guilty to the same offence and received 20 months' imprisonment, and the Registrar referred the Applicant's application for leave to appeal sentence to the Full Court. [Para 29][Para 30]
The Applicant and the co-defendant were students at The College and, after drinking alcohol, chased and violently assaulted a young ewe on a rural outing; the conduct included swinging, kicking, punching, dragging, and striking the animal's head against a fencepost, followed by further abuse captured on video and the insertion and ignition of fireworks or bangers into the ewe's mouth and anus. [Para 32][Para 34][Para 35][Para 36][Para 37]
After the incident, the Applicant told others not to disclose what had happened, the college was informed after a video was shown to a third party, the police were called, the ear tag was recovered at the college, both students were excluded, and the Applicant had no previous convictions. [Para 38][Para 39][Para 41]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the sentence of immediate custody should have been suspended in light of the Applicant's age, autism diagnosis, immaturity, delay since the offence, and claimed prospects of rehabilitation. [Para 57][Para 59]
- Whether Judge Gold erred by failing to give adequate reasons and by not properly applying the Imposition Guideline when deciding against a suspended sentence order. [Para 57][Para 59]
Arguments of the Parties
Applicant's Arguments
- The Applicant submitted that Judge Gold gave insufficient reasons for imposing immediate custody and failed to apply the Imposition Guideline when considering suspension. [Para 57][Para 59]
- The Applicant relied on his autism diagnosis, youth, immaturity, the delay between offence and charge, and the absence of further offending as strong personal mitigation showing a realistic prospect of rehabilitation in the community. [Para 57][Para 59]
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court criticised the community impact evidence, holding that the prosecution was required to comply with the Criminal Procedure Rules and Practice Directions, that the material did not show any relevant local crime trend, that public comments on sentence were irrelevant, and that the late filing of the material left the defence with no meaningful opportunity to respond or cross-examine, so the evidence was unfair and of no assistance. [Para 46][Para 48][Para 49][Para 50]
On sentence, the court accepted that Judge Gold should have referred to the Imposition Guideline and weighed the factors for and against suspension in light of the Applicant's age and autism, but held that the seriousness of the offence meant that appropriate punishment could only be achieved by immediate custody. [Para 60]
The court also noted that the judge had treated the offence as Category 1A under the animal cruelty guideline, found high culpability because the conduct was sadistic, found high harm because the ewe died, and concluded that the offence was so shocking that immediate custody was inevitable; after allowing one-third credit for the guilty plea, the sentence was fixed at two years' imprisonment. [Para 53][Para 54]
The court rejected the oral submission that the characterisation of the conduct as sadistic was relevant to the suspension issue, and held that, given the level and nature of the cruelty, it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence should have been suspended. [Para 61][Para 62]
Holding and Implications
LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED. The Applicant's two-year custodial sentence and disqualification order remained in force. [Para 62][Para 55]
No broader implications were discussed in the opinion.