11 Mar 2026
Government plans to reform the law risk allowing offenders to access animals even after they have been convicted, a senior clinician has said.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: Tatyana Gladskih / Adobe Stock
Plans to tighten the law on the sexual abuse of animals contain a major “safeguarding gap” that must now be addressed, a senior clinician has warned.
The Government has proposed to widen the scope of existing legislation so that all sexual activity inflicted on an animal becomes a criminal offence.
But while that move has been welcomed, fears have been raised that the proposals would not automatically bar offenders from owning or living with animals in the future.
Vet Dave Martin, a trustee of the Links Group, which works to raise awareness of the link between abuse of animals and people, said: “This risks establishing the offence in law without addressing its most critical safeguarding consequence.
“In effect, perpetrators could be convicted and yet still retain access to animals, leaving both animals and people at ongoing risk.”
The issue was highlighted following a House of Lords debate on 2 March where the Government’s proposed amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill was outlined.
Under its plans, the current offence of sexual intercourse with an animal would be replaced with one of sexual activity, which could be punished by a maximum of two years in prison.
Justice minister Baroness Levitt said the proposals reflected “the reality of this kind of behaviour and ensures that the law is fit for purpose”.
She praised Dr Martin and Links Group chairperson Paula Boyden for the evidence they had provided, and thanked politicians including the vet and MP Danny Chambers, whom she said had “argued persuasively that the current offence does not reflect the full range of abhorrent behaviour that we believe should be prohibited”.
But the minister rejected concerns the proposed maximum sentence was insufficient, arguing there was no evidence to support the claim and pointing out that it matched provisions under the existing law.
She also argued offenders could face additional charges under the Animal Welfare Act, which does provide the option of imposing an ownership ban.
However, critics argue such provisions would not apply in cases where suffering could not be demonstrated through forensic evidence or signs of physical injury, even if sexual activity could be proven to have taken place.
Dr Martin, who also serves as IVC Evidensia’s group animal welfare director, has now written to Defra and the Ministry of Justice to call for the courts to be given specific removal and disqualification powers in such cases.
Dr Martin said: “Although this issue has now been raised in Parliament, there is no certainty that the bill will be amended to resolve this clear oversight.”
The Government has pledged to continue discussions with key stakeholders on how the new offence would work alongside existing cruelty crimes.
But despite describing the plans as “a really important step forward”, Conservative peer Lord Black of Brentwood echoed the concern about a lack of disqualification powers.
He said: “The best way to protect animals is to ensure that those inclined to commit such despicable crimes are banned from owning them or having access to them.”