ABSTRACT
It is, of course, self-evident that the prevention of cruelty and the promotion of high standards of welfare are not discrete objectives. It is not surprising, therefore, that concern to prevent ‘unnecessary suffering’ is common to both strands of legislation; but while the legal definition of cruelty is defined almost exclusively by reference to this concept, welfare legislation also includes terms such as ‘without suffering’,24 ‘shall not be harmful’,25 and ‘unfit’.26 Such wording ousts the balancing exercise inherent in the ‘unnecessary suffering’ test, with the result that any suffering, harm, or injury may amount to an offence. Equally, an animal is either unfit or it is not; there is no requirement to consider the necessity of its condition. Furthermore, unlike the Protection of Animals Acts, welfare legislation may expressly require that those who care for animals positively ‘prevent’ or ‘protect’ them from suffering,27 or take appropriate steps ‘to avoid injury and unnecessary suffering and to ensure the safety of the animals’.28
