Animal Neglect 99 omissions Accordingly it is an offence to unnecessarily infuriate or terrify a protected animal in addition to, or instead of, causing physical pain Nurse and Ryland (2013, p 47) identify, for example, that while a police horse on riot control duty might suffer mental pain as a consequence of being in a stressful, violent environment, this is arguably ‘necessary’ for it to fulfil its legitimate purpose of protecting people or property and contributing to the maintenance of law and order (notwithstanding moral considerations about such animal use) However, a non-human companion such as a cat or dog which is tortured or suffers intense pain as a result of neglect before being humanely euthanised, has suffered excessively before its demise, and it is an offence for any person to cause unnecessary (physical or mental) suffering to a protected animal where the person committing the act knew or ought reasonably to have known, that the act would cause, or would be likely to cause, suffering In addition, the law identifies that where a person is responsible for an animal, he would commit an offence if unnecessary suffering was caused to the animal by his failing to take some action UK case law clarifies that this is the case where the person knew or ought reasonably to have known that any omission on their part would cause, or would be likely to cause, suffering Nurse and Ryland highlight that it is not necessary to show that the person actually knew that his act or omission would cause suffering, but only that he ought to have known and is required to actively understand a specific non-human animal’s needs (2014, p 6) Thus neglect is linked to an objective standard of what constitutes reasonable behaviour Radford (2001, p 253) highlights this point in relation to a historical case—RSPCA v Isaacs [1994] Crim LR 517 where a defendant failed to seek veterinary care for her dog for 10 years fearing that it might be put down because of its condition The Court in examining whether the suffering was unnecessary considered that an objective test could be applied as follows: unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant; resulting in an animal suffering; and that suffering being unnecessary (Radford 2001, p 251) In respect of the omission or neglect on the Isaacs case, the Court thus posed the following questions: Did the dog suffer? (Answer: yes)