But there is an edge to these codes. They are not just to be taken or left as pet owners choose. In announcing the consultation exercise, Hilary Benn said “The Animal Welfare Act 2006 has been the most important piece of animal legislation for nearly a century. Animals are now afforded greater protection than ever before. These three new codes of practice will outline the responsibilities of owners under the Act and give practical advice on how to fulfil them. This means no one will be able to claim ignorance as an excuse for mistreating any animal.” The codes warn that “You should not cause any unnecessary suffering to your animal; this could constitute a serious offence under the Act.”

To remove any further doubt, each code has an annex which spells out the relevant sections of the Act:-

Unnecessary suffering
(1) A person commits an offence if -
(a) an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b) he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c) the animal is a protected animal, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.
(2) A person commits an offence if -
(a) he is responsible for an animal,
(b) an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,
(c) he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and
(d) the suffering is unnecessary.

Enabling Provision: s.4 Animal Welfare Act 2006
Triable Status: Summarily only.
Max. Sentence Summary: 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding £20,000,
or both.
Possible defence: s.58 Animal Welfare Act 2006: Scientific research
(1) Nothing in this Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (c14).

Duty of person responsible for animal to ensure welfare
(1) A person commits an offence if he does not take such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the needs of an animal for which he is responsible are met to the extent required by good practice.

Enabling Provision: s.9 Animal Welfare Act 2006
Triable Status: Summarily only.
Max. Sentence Summary: 51 weeks, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both
Possible defence: s.58 Animal Welfare Act 2006: Scientific research
(1) Nothing in this Act applies to anything lawfully done under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (c14)

(See Criminal Offences Handbook (Anya Publishing), pp 18/19 & 30).
You have six weeks left if you want to take part in this consultation exercise. Details of the exercise and the text of the three codes can be found at
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2008/081104a.htm

Complicity in suicide.
(1) A person who aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide, shall be [guilty of an offence] …

Enabling Provision: s.2 Suicide Act 1961.
Triable Status: Indictable only.
Max. Sentence on Indictment: 14 years.

(See Criminal Offences Handbook (Anya Publishing) p.229)

All court cases concerning this subject are highly emotive, and the latest is no exception. Debbie Purdy is suffering from multiple sclerosis and facing the dilemma of when to take steps to kill herself or whether to wait until she needs help from her husband and risk his prosecution. According to ‘The Times’ she is considering going to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, if her pain becomes unbearable, although “having to go to another country will be adding to my own grief and distress”. Her husband has said that he would assist her “and if necessary face a prison sentence, but I am not prepared to put him in this position.”

The DPP is making decisions to prosecute anyone who assists with a UK suicide, although no relative of the 100 UK citizens who have gone abroad to Dignitas clinics to die has been prosecuted. There is no written public guidance informing these decisions. Ms Purdy wants UK law clarified, and successfully appealed in June for a judicial review in the High Court on the grounds that the DPP had acted illegally by not providing such guidance. That appeal is now in progress. Her QC, David Pannick, accused the DPP of breaching Ms Purdy’s right to respect for her personal and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights by failing to publish a policy making clear the circumstances in which he would, or would not, allow a prosecution to proceed. Lawyers for the DPP said that the clear legal provisions of the Suicide Act 1961 provide sufficient information when coupled with the guidance contained in the Code for Crown Prosecutors. The case continues.

Last month, Justice Minister Maria Eagle made a statement on clarifying the law on assisting suicide to deal with the misuse of the internet, in particular about suicide websites and the influence they may have over vulnerable people, especially young people. The Minister accepted that “the complexity of the law in this area stems from the unusual nature of the offence in section 2 of the Suicide Act which provides accessory liability in respect of something which is not of itself criminal.” She went on to say “we have concluded that the scope of the current law should not be extended but that the existing statutory language of section 2 of the Suicide Act should be simplified and modernised in a way which will make it clearer for everyone to understand.” Legislation to update the Suicide Act in this respect was promised “as soon as Parliamentary time allows.”
So no change in the law, just making it all clearer.

Given that the number of days a suspect spends in detention before trial is a not a scientific exercise but an uneasy compromise, how can it be that 42 has achieved the status of a threat to the leadership of the government? While there has been much agonising , soul searching and almost daily concessions to get the provisions through Parliament, the actual number itself seems to be sacrosanct. All this for a proposed law which may be needed one day in the future, may never be used at all, and would affect very few people.

The police have apparently provided examples of circumstances which would justify the 42 days, but even they have not claimed that any terrorist has escaped justice because 28 days was not enough. The Security Services don’t want it, former senior Law Officers have spoken against it – even those who supported the Government in the previous 90 day vote – and almost all others in the know (but not on the Government payroll) agree that there is no evidence backing 42 days. The current level of 28 days is more than other members of the European Union consider necessary, despite being equal targets for terrorism. Their criticism of the British proposals has been robust and concerted.

Writing in the ‘Guardian’, Marcel Berlins says 42 is symbolic. “It represents all the government’s excessive anti-terrorist legislation; detention without charge or trial; the steady erosion of the rule of law; and the nibbling away of civil liberties. The resistance of the Labour rebels is not based on a calculation of how many weeks is appropriate. It is a statement encompassing the whole of Labour’s anti-terrorist policy. Enough is enough.”

Come back Douglas Adams. Your country needs you.