Debate contribution: Register of Animal Welfare Offenders

Debate contribution by Ms Joanne Bunting on 22 October 2024.

MLA

Ms Joanne Bunting

Party at the time

Democratic Unionist Party

Date

22 October 2024

Type

Debate contribution

Business

Private Members' Business

Heading

Register of Animal Welfare Offenders

Assembly identifier

Official Report component 4608468

Read the official Assembly record

Text

I am extremely passionate about the issue. Cruelty to and the mistreatment and neglect of animals are utterly repugnant. Many of us believe that there should be zero tolerance, yet we find ourselves in the most bizarre of circumstances: although some have been banned from keeping animals, there is no official record of them beyond the court and, therefore, nobody to ensure that the court's judgement of a ban is upheld and enforced. It is clear that, in the last mandate, progress was being made. The key now is to build on it and finally move to establish the register. In 2020, I raised questions with the then AERA Minister, Mr Poots. He advised that the responsibility for creating a register was not entirely in his gift, as the data was held by the Department of Justice. He further cited issues of data protection, human rights and cost that had to be overcome but said that he was engaging with DOJ and would continue to do so to see whether those issues could be resolved. He indicated that he had requested his officials to take those efforts forward and develop potential next steps before the end of that year. Mr Poots elaborated, saying that he did not get all the issues around data. Since most of the offences are public, the cases have been through the courts and so are already in the public domain. After all, the issue is to ensure that those who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals do not have the opportunity to do it again. The more people who are aware of that, the better. At that time, the Minister cited considerable concern in the DOJ about how to handle and engage in compliance with existing procedures. He said that he hoped that, before we reached the end of the mandate, DOJ would be in a position to give the new Minister room to move it forward in conjunction with a future AERA Minister. Here we are, again seeking to move it forward. It is clear that there was movement and progression at the previous Minister's direction and under his leadership. All that remains is for the current Ministers to pick up his mantle. Shortly after the restoration of devolution, I asked the current Minister whether he would bring forward proposals on an animal cruelty register, to which he responded that he was aware of the case for it and that his Department had identified operational challenges. I know that a Minister is not bound by a predecessor's views. However, it is clear that work was being done to progress the register, which matters to a multitude of our citizens and all right-thinking people but now appears to have stalled. In March, the Justice Minister indicated that she had not had formal discussions with her colleague in DAERA about the register, as policy sits with his Department, but was open to discussing how best her Department could support his on the penalties and fines attached to animal welfare offences, whether that is through a register or otherwise. Let us turn to sentencing. Many in Northern Ireland have been horrified by the cases that they have seen and are, at best, unhappy with the sentences meted out. Those are only the ones that receive press attention. In the last mandate, I asked the Minister whether she would make representation to the then Lord Chief Justice to ensure that judges made full use of the sentences available to them for animal cruelty offences. I am told that Northern Ireland has some of the most stringent sentencing available on animal cruelty. There are, however, few examples of stringent sentences being handed down. There are multiple repeat offenders, and sentences involving a ban on keeping animals cannot be implemented or enforced, which renders the sentence redundant and subjects further animals to cruelty and mistreatment. The Minister indicated that sentencing was entirely a matter for the independent judiciary, taking into account all relevant factors in the individual case. She stated that the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) had the power to refer animal cruelty cases to the Court of Appeal, if he deems that the sentence handed down in certain Crown Court cases is unduly lenient. That might be fine, if any animal cruelty cases went to the Crown Court, but they almost never do. From where is the appeal request on lenient sentencing to come? In my first meeting with the Lady Chief Justice, the issue of sentencing — the public's understanding of it and lenient sentencing — arose, so I took the opportunity to bring to her attention the public concern over the sentencing in some cases and the inability to appeal. The bottom line is this: if bans are to be meted out as part of a sentence, that sentence must be enforced, and it is impossible to enforce such a ban if there is no register. The whole thing becomes a farce and, thus, is far removed from being a deterrent or a means to prevent repetition. If the will were there, it would be done. I believe that it is the will of the House and of the people of Northern Ireland, so let us get it done and provide more than lip service to issues of animal welfare and protection.

888 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:28 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification