Petition Impose a lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone convicted of animal cruelty

The government should impose a lifetime ban on animal ownership for anyone who causes deliberate suffering to animals. Under current laws, courts can impose bans but these may be short-term, allowing offenders to own animals again after a short period.

More details

We think anyone who harms an animal should never be trusted with one again.

We think there is no reason to believe that a person who has shown a capacity for cruelty will change, especially without proper rehabilitation. We believe a lifetime ban could ensure that once an individual is convicted of animal abuse, they will never again have the power to inflict harm on another animal under their ownership. Animal ownership is a privilege, not a right, and cruelty shouldn't be tolerated.

Sign this petition

12,544 signatures

Show on a map the geographical breakdown of signatures by constituency

100,000 signatures required to be considered for a debate in Parliament

Government responded

This response was given on 12 May 2025

Under the Animal Welfare Act, courts may impose animal ownership bans of varying durations on offenders. We consider it is appropriate for courts to determine such decisions on a case-by-case basis.

The needless suffering of animals is always a concern, whether that suffering is deliberately inflicted, accidental, or the result of negligence. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 provides strong powers to address such cruelty, ensuring appropriate measures are in place to protect animal welfare.

Causing an animal to experience unnecessary suffering is an offence under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Following a conviction, the court may also ban the offender from keeping animals or certain types or animals and/or order that their animals are removed from them. The court will decide how long an offender is banned for and the minimum period that must elapse before the offender can seek the termination of any order.

Sentencing in individual cases is a matter for our independent courts. When deciding what sentence to impose, courts must consider the circumstances of the case, including the culpability of the offender, the harm they caused or intended to cause, and any aggravating and mitigating factors. The courts also have a statutory duty to follow any relevant sentencing guidelines, developed by the independent Sentencing Council for England and Wales. Sentencing Council guidance on Animal Deprivation and Animal Disqualification orders can be found here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-material/magistrates-court/item/ancillary-orders/1-introduction-to-ancillary-orders/.

In September 2024, the Sentencing Council consulted on proposals to improve the consistency, accessibility and presentation of the current information on Ancillary Orders. The Council are currently considering responses to this consultation.

Furthermore, the 2006 Act is backed up by codes of practice for the welfare of certain animals (including dogs, cats and horses): https://www.gov.uk/guidance/animal-welfare-legislation-protecting-pets#codes-of-practice.
These codes of practice provide owners with information on how to meet the welfare needs of their animals, as required by the 2006 Act. Breach of a provision of these codes is not an offence itself but if proceedings are brought against someone for an offence under the 2006 Act, the Court will look at whether or not they have complied with the relevant code in deciding whether they have committed an offence.

The Police National Computer holds all relevant information for prosecutions made for animal cruelty offences and Animal Disqualification orders under the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Certain organisations have access to this information, where appropriate, to fulfil their public function. This allows this information to be protected from misuse, but also for it to be available for organisations with a justified need to access it.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

At 100,000 signatures...

At 100,000 signatures, this petition will be considered for debate in Parliament

Share this petition