Practice Groups

Animal Protection

We have a growing team of barristers who specialise in criminal offences, involving the welfare and treatment of animals as well as matters relating to wildlife crime.
Chambers now has a number of members who specialise in defending allegedly dangerous dogs and their human companions. Since expanding into this area, Chambers has fast become a go-to set for some of some of the country’s most specialist solicitors’ firms. Members of our animal protection law team are commended for their experience, passion and commitment to ensuring the best possible outcomes for clients, and for the animals involved.

Our team has built an in-depth understanding of Animal Welfare Law and the complex and unique considerations involved in animal protection matters. They are experts in navigating the legal complexities of this ever-evolving field, ensuring every case adheres to the highest standards of animal protection legislation.
Members are regularly instructed in cases where people are facing disqualification from owning or keeping animals. Since many welfare crimes became either way offences, the team has had an influx of instructions to act in Crown Court Animal Welfare Act trials, often involving large numbers of animals, contested expert evidence and novel points of law. Cases have involved a variety of animals from cats, dogs and horses to racoon dogs, meerkats, pythons and geckos.

Members also have experience of animal-related civil matters, such as S.20 Animal Welfare Act applications, or applications under s.4B of the Dangerous Dogs Act. Some members also have experience of small track civil claims such as companion animal custody cases.
More information about the particular areas of Animal Protection Law members specialise in can be found by clicking the links to Dangerous Dogs Act Cases, Animal Welfare Law and Wildlife Crime

RECENT CASES

R v V: Samuel March represented two defendants in a five-handed burglary trial before Peterborough Crown Court relating to the rescue by Animal Rising activists of 18 beagle puppies from a facility that breeds dogs for animal testing. Samuel argued that their actions were not “dishonest” by the standards of ordinary decent people. The defendants were acquitted.  (see Cambsnews 10 March 2026, Historic Peterborough Crown Court verdict: five cleared after rescuing beagle puppies from MBR Acres)

R v M: Samuel March represented an Animal Rising activist charged with burglary.  The case concerned the rescue of animals from the same facility as the above 2026 case. The Crown discontinued the case at an early stage following the Defendant’s decision to elect a Crown Court trial. (See Cambridgeshire Live 16 July 2022, MBR Acres: Burglary charges dropped after dogs taken from MBR Acres breeding facility)

R v S: Samuel March represented a defendant in a four-handed trial before Liverpool Crown Court arising out of disruption to the start of Grand National in 2023. The defendants were Animal Rising activists charged with attempting to cause a public nuisance.

Samuel called an expert horse racing consultant and an expert veterinary surgeon to give evidence as to the cruel practices, suffering and death statistics involved in jump racing. He argued that defendants had a “reasonable excuse”, namely protecting horses from death and suffering. The trial resulted in a hung jury and the prosecution then offered no evidence, resulting in the acquittal of all defendants.

News