1. How did you become involved in the animal protection movement?
I was always interested in animal protection as a child and hated any form of cruelty (whether to people or animals). I volunteered between school and university at the RSPCA dogs’ home in Cardiff and ended up running it for a period when the manageress was sacked!

2. You are a former Chairman and current vice-chairman of the RSPCA UK and a former director of Compassion in World Farming. Can you tell us about the highlights of your involvement with those organisations?
It is difficult to be specific because both organisations do very good work in many areas, the RSPCA covering all the myriad issues of animal cruelty and CIWF farm animal welfare (which, given the scale of livestock farming, is an enormous area). A big part of the role of animal protection trustees/directors is to ensure that their organisations are fit to help animals in distress and to take on the massive vested interests that are ranged against them. Much of the focus therefore has to be internal. But there is a great deal of opportunity to address animal protection issues as well and also to shape societal attitudes.  This last is a key part of our task as a movement – we have to have a coherent ethical framework and insist that sentient animals are not ours to do with as we please. The RSPCA was heavily involved in the achievement of a ban on hunting with dogs n the UK – there are bigger issues in direct animal protection terms, but one should not underestimate the symbolic importance of the ban for animal protection more generally. The focus of both organisations is international as well as domestic, which reflects the international nature of much animal protection law these days (such as European Union law and the WTO).

3. You are also one of the founders of the UK Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare. Can you tell us about the aims and objectives of that group?
ALAW believes that the law, in its widest sense, has a central role to play in animal protection. Lawyers can help shape legislation by pointing to existing deficiencies and by drafting proposals and can ensure (by legal argument and if necessary court proceedings) that it is both interpreted correctly and enforced. Training is also important. Lawyers can also help bring the reality of animal cruelty to public attention through use of freedom of information laws and the like and try to ensure as level a playing-field as possible between animal protectionists and industry/governments in the battle for hearts and minds. ALAW is UK-based but the focus is also very much international.

4. Although you have been involved in a wide variety of animal protection issues, one of your major focuses is animal experimentation. What roles are there for lawyers who want to become advocates in this area?
There is enormous scope for use of the law to ensure that lab animals get as much protection as possible (always assuming that the country in question has relevant legislation in the first place). At European Union level, the law impinging on lab animals can be extremely complicated and is very often not applied properly, a problem at individual member state level too.

5. In 2003, you wrote an article entitled ‘Lab animals and the art of empathy’ which was published in Journal of Medical Ethics. Can you tell us about the major themes of that article? How was it received?
The major themes were: any ethical philosophy should be coherent across comparable issues; the obvious comparator for experimenting non-consensually on lab animals is experimenting non-consensually on people; since we condemn the latter we should also condemn the former; the reason we condemn the latter is that we instinctively empathise with the victim and recoil in horror at the thought of our being experimented on; and empathy (putting oneself in the shoes of the victim) should also govern our attitude to animal experiments (and indeed animal cruelty more generally). There have been many positive comments. The article inspired a response by Prof Raymond Frey (a pro-vivisection ethicist), which the journal published with a counter-response from me.

6. You have been involved in a number of EU test cases aimed at defending animals, through the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV), or other groups. Can you tell us about some of those cases?
EU law has a central place in animal protection law. Because of the restrictive rules on standing, it is very difficult for NGOs to take cases directly the European Court of Justice. However, cases can be referred there by the courts of member states and it is also possible to make a complaint to the European Commission about the way a member state is implementing EU legislation. A current example is the complaint made by the BUAV against Germany following the organisation’s undercover investigation at a primate facility run by Covance Germany.

7. In additional to focussing on animal experimentation, you have advised Respect for Animals on international fur issues. What legal controls are imposed on the fur industry (if any) to protect animals in the EU?
The controls, such as they are, are usually wholly inadequate. They are for the most part at member state level. Some of the major campaign and legal issues are: fur farming (some EU countries have banned the practice but most have not); the import of cat and dog fur, principally from the Far East (there is an issue as to whether the EU has the legal authority to ban the trade); the import of seal products (only the products of young harp and hooded seals are currently banned) (EU law and WTO issues); and trapping (EU law, WTO and international agreement issues).

8. Based on your experience, do you view the WTO as an obstacle to animal welfare? If so, could you outline a few of your key concerns?
It should not be an obstacle. I believe that there is considerable scope to introduce trade restrictions for cruelly-produced items under the WTO, if the arguments are correctly marshalled.  Unfortunately, this does not always happen. In addition, powerful governments and institutions like the EU have often preferred an untrammelled free trade approach. We should fight this – provided an animal protection measure is not motivated by protectionist concerns, there is no reason why WTO members should not ban the trade in cruelty-related products, as with the recent EU ban on cosmetics tested on animals.

9. The EU (and indeed the UK) appears to be exercising leadership in many areas of animal protection law. For example, The Sunday Times reported on March 12 that the use of elephants, monkeys and bears in travelling circus acts will be outlawed in the UK. What factors do you feel are driving such reforms?
The short answer is public opinion, which is usually ahead of the politicians, who are often more interested in appeasing commercial interests. The media can be supportive, but is not consistent. NGOs do much good work in finding out the reality of the situations in which animals find themselves, informing the public and politicians (using good science) and then campaigning for change, but it is usually an uphill battle.

10. Do you have any words of wisdom to share with Australia's budding animal lawyers?
Not sure about words of wisdom but I believe that this is an extremely interesting and worthwhile area of law to get involved in, particularly where lawyers have an interest in the underlying policy and ethical issues. Animal protection law is often very demanding intellectually (particularly the international law aspects). Interest is added by the interplay with political, media, ethical and campaigning issues. This is not an easy area to specialise in, and there are lots of frustrations, but it is very rewarding. Every success is likely to mean a real improvement for large numbers of animals.