# First Successful Prosecution at a Show



## Chris Newman (Apr 23, 2007)

The first successful prosecution has been brought against an exhibitor (vendor) at the South Wales Amphibian & Reptile Expo (SWARE) shows for offences under the Pet Animals Act, 1951 and Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations, 2008. Four counts, two for each of the two shows that ran. The trail concluded earlier this month and yesterday (29th April) the judgment was handed down and the defendant was found guilty on all counts and fined a total of £3,500. 

This case raises some serious questions, not least of all is a Local Authority appearing to appoint the Animal Protection Agency in an investigation and evidence gathering capacity. The issue of shows and their legality under the Per Animals Act is a complex matter and the organisers were advised that there were potentially some concerns about the proposed event (see email below). 

Currently the Federation of British Herpetologists is seeking leave for a Judicial Review to clarify some of the legal uncertainties relating to such events, the matter is back in the High Court on the 10th of June this year.



Sent by email: 17th of December, 2012 at 11:04am

Dear Sirs,

My name is Chris Newman and I am chairman of the Federation of British Herpetologists [FBH], this link to our website gives more details about what we do: http://www.fbh.org.uk/. I am writing to you as I have some concerns that you are going to run into problems with the event you are trying to organise, i.e. the South Wales Amphibian & Reptile Expo as advertised on RFUK:
http://www.reptileforums.co.uk/forums/reptile-shows-breeder-meetings/916609-new-south-wales-show.html

As you may be aware there have been some difficulties with shows over the past decade due to attacks from the extreme Animal Rights lobby. The legality of such events is complex and confused, but the fundamental argument hinges on whether such events are “commercial” or not. If they are then they would require licensing under the Pet Animals Act 1951, but unfortunately the 1983 amendment to the Act,
Section 2, actually prohibits the licensing of such events. Section 2 of the Act has been set for repeal by the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and would allow such events to be licensed, but the enactment order has yet to be brought forward so Section 2 is still in force preventing such events from being licensed.

DEFRA published guidance on shows back in 2007 [copy attached] setting out the parameters under which shows [pet fairs] are lawful. I have also attached a copy of the FBH position statement and a copy of the briefing document prepared as part of our call for government to complete the repeal of Section 2 of the pet Animals Act which would allow Local Authorities to licence events.

A number of people have contacted me with concerns regarding your event and I have to say that unfortunately the event you are proposing to run on the 14th of April 2013 is not compliant with the current legislation. This is primarily due to the fact that the event is ‘commercial’ and would require licensing under the Pet Animals Act. As is stands today the only events [shows] that can run lawfully are events organised by a bona fide club or society where the event is held on behalf of and benefit of its memberships. 

Over the past couple of years a number of similar events have been attempted and all have failed once organisations such as the Animal Protection Agency have instructed their legal advisors to approach the relevant authorities. As the legislation stands today the event you are planning is not legal and could not be successfully defended. 

Sorry to sound so negative but I felt that I should warn you of the likely difficulties you are facing. The problem is that the APA et al normally lull organisers into a false sense of security by not mounting any challenges until the last minute causing maximum disruption due to last-minute cancellation of the event by which time the organisers have inevitably run up considerable costs. 

Please feel free to get in contact if you need any more information.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Newman
Chairman Federation of British Herpetologists 


1. DEFRA guidance
2. Shows/Expos and the law – FBH position statement
3. Reptile Shows - Briefing document


----------



## Geomyda (Aug 11, 2008)

I suspect, that there will be attempts to leverage off this case by AR groups throughout the coming year?


----------



## ian14 (Jan 2, 2008)

The press release relating to this. It is interesting to see the Judge's comments relating to circumnavigating restrictions on selling animals at a market.

The fact that these events are open to paying members of the public is something that I have said for some time is where they fall down, as they do then become a market and a public place.

Anyhow, this is so far the only report in the news that I can find:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/newport-city-council-brings-landmark-prosecution-against-reptile-dealer-257363081.html

I did find a second report, including a photo of Mr Astle, but it is the exact same release as this one.


----------



## Madhouse5 (Jun 6, 2011)

ok so are the FBH now paying to help clear this guys name for what I have read and been told he was doing nothing that all the other tables at the meet was so there all guilty then


----------



## Jabba the mentor (Nov 13, 2008)

Madhouse5 said:


> ok so are the FBH now paying to help clear this guys name for what I have read and been told he was doing nothing that all the other tables at the meet was so there all guilty then


I would think the answer to that is no because there is no money in it for them


----------



## colinm (Sep 20, 2008)

Thats got nothing to do with it. If you look at the other thread in snakes it is explained there.

Basically the F.B.H. is involved in a costly court action elsewhere and does not have the funds to fight two cases. 

It should also be remembered that the show at which the prosecution took place was not affiliated to the F.B.H. Despite this Chris has freely given his advice to the organisers and I assume the guilty party, when he was under no obligation to do so.

I think its best to discuss it all on the other thread now.


----------

