The petitioners sought a faculty for the installation of pigeon-deterrent material in the porch of this Grade I listed church. Previous measures had not been wholly successful and keeping the porch doors closed would not be acceptable. While shooting had been successful in the past, the court observed that to do so without a general licence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, or in any event other than for the preservation of public health and public safety, would be illegal.

The present proposals were for an electric system called Avishock, which delivered a small electric shock in the same manner as an electric fence for cattle. It was designed to move the pigeons on and persuade them not to return. Bristol City Council had confirmed to the petitioners that there was no reason to believe that the product was harmful or illegal, and it could be installed so long as the product was registered or conformed to British Standards. However, it had gone on to warn that, if a complaint of cruelty were made, a prosecution could follow.

The court had to satisfy itself that the Avishock system was not unlawful. It considered that the relevant legislation was the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which prohibited the causing of unnecessary suffering. Research by the Central Science Laboratory (a government agency) in 2008 had concluded that pigeons and sparrows were uninjured by exposure to such a device; but this was of limited assistance, as the concept of suffering was wider than bodily injury. In applying the conclusions of a research paper published by the Humane Society, the court considered that the device would cause suffering, as it would cause physiological and behavioural changes similar to those which humans associate with pain. Indeed, if it did not do so, it would not work. However, the suffering was merely a brief physical discomfort.

The question whether suffering was ‘unnecessary’ was dealt with by section 4(3) of the Act, which gave a non-exhaustive list of factors such as whether the suffering could reasonably be avoided or reduced, compliance with any relevant enactment, the legitimacy of the purpose of the conduct causing the suffering, the proportionality of the suffering to the purpose of the conduct and whether the conduct was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person. The court considered that, in applying these factors, the suffering was not unnecessary. A faculty would therefore be issued. [DW]