Ligghall för utegångsdjur – en sammanställning och analys av domar i djurskyddsärenden som handlar om ligghall till utegångsdjur åren 2007-2013

Abstract: There is currently an ongoing discussion in Sweden about the need for weather shelter for farm animals being kept outdoors during the winter season. Currently, the national animal welfare legislation requires weather shelter providing the animals’ with access to a dry and clean place to rest, but under certain conditions exemptions can be granted. The Swedish Board of Agriculture has put forward a hypothesis that there is a difference between judicial decisions in animal welfare cases dealing with weather shelters, as to whether the animal has shown to be suffering or not. The aim of the study was to highlight any weaknesses or difficulties when assessing animal welfare issues associated to the absence of or design of weather shelters. This could lead to an improved handling of the cases, but also to get an even and fair outcome of similar cases, and by that, maintain the rule of law. The study was divided into two parts. The aim of part 1 was to present and analyse existing cases of animal welfare issues in realtion to weather shelter and outwintering animals during the years 2007-2013. This compilation and analysis aimed at answering if the judicial decisions differed between species and if they differed geographically between different county administrative boards and courts. It also aimed at answering whether there were differences between animals/herds being part of the control program approved by the Swedish Board of Agriculture for outwintering animals, compared to those not being members. In part 2 the aim was to compile the animal welfare cases involving weather shelters, where the county administration notified the prosecutor’s office, but where the prosecutor chose to close the case without pressing charges, during the years of 2009-2013. The analysis aimed at answering if there were systematic differences geographically between different county administrative boards and different courts and if the prosecutors’ decision to discontinue the prosecution was related to absence of evidence of suffering in the animals involved. Part 1 of the study was conducted by the help of the legal publisher JP Infonet, where all judicial decisions and sentences at all levels of jurisdictions are compiled in a database. To illustrate the question as a whole, all judicial decisions and sentences, including exemptions, apprehension of animals and banning animal ownership etcetera, were included where the weather shelter played a distinct role in the case. In part 2, all the county administrative boards were contacted to get access to all the cases notifications of prosecution somehow including weather shelters to outwintering animals that had not gone to court. The results showed that some breeds were overrepresented in animal welfare cases involving outwintering animals, and that the opinions differed when it came to the weather resistance of such breeds. Gaps in knowledge were found among both animal owners and prosecutors regarding the complexity of the control programs approved by the Swedish Board of Agriculture, which led to some owners avoiding the basic requirement of supplying weather shelter during the cold season. Furthermore, deficiencies in knowledge regarding the Swedish Animal Welfare Act as a preventive action were identified among prosecutors. Judicial decisions were found where the prosecutor’s judgement was based on if the animals had been suffering or not, which is a legal requirement for the act of animal cruelty. In such cases it would instead have been judicially correct to base the decision on the question of a violation of the Animal Welfare Act, which is a preventive act and does not require evidence of the animals having been suffering. This study showed that there is a need for a clarification of the control programmes approved by the Swedish Board of Agriculture, where the complexity of the programs is presented. Furthermore the Swedish Board of Agriculture’s view of weather shelters as a preventative measure should reach out to concerned levels of jurisdiction. Absence of weather shelter is, according to the Swedish Animal Welfare Act and the Swedish Board of Agriculture, enough of a violation of the legislation by itself to warrant legal action, and does not require evidence of animal suffering.