The courtroom vocabulary of animal suffering
“[the claimant’s barrister] has manfully attempted to elevate chickens to a status that somehow makes them victims and persons affected…”
This was the view of the British Poultry Council’s barrister during a July 2025 High Court hearing where The Animal Law Foundation was granted permission to challenge the government on its codes of practice allowing for chickens to be handled by their legs, in contravention of the applicable regulation.
The legal background
Under EU derived law EU Regulation 1/2005, implemented in England through the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006, it was prohibited to lift chickens by the legs. Yet the government codes of practice permitted the practice.
When that inconsistency was challenged, the government did not amend the codes. Instead, it amended the law and removed the prohibition. The Animal Law Foundation challenged the government’s actions in court through a judicial review.
This case involved a serious welfare issue, with implications for billions of chickens. Handling by the legs causes chickens acute stress, fractures, dislocations and breathing difficulties. Yet in the courtroom the very concept of animal suffering was often absent and at times derided.
Sentient in statute
Under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, animals are recognised as sentient beings.
Animal protection law in general proceeds on the basis that animals can feel pain and experience suffering.
In everyday terms, we understand that a victim is one who suffers harm.
In this case, the ones who suffer harm are the chickens and they bear the consequences of the removal of a legal protection.
But in court, it is rarely presented in those terms.
The words used in court
During a July 2025 judicial review permission hearing, the British Poultry Council’s barrister responded to submissions made by our barrister, Philip Rule KC, saying:
“[the claimant’s barrister] has manfully attempted to elevate chickens to a status that somehow makes them victims and persons affected…”
While animals do not have legal personality nor can they bring claims in their own name, this type of language is an attempt to minimise the cruelty chickens are subjected to.
To describe recognising chickens as “victims” as an attempt to “elevate” them frames such recognition as a step beyond their accepted legal category.
A similar shift in tone surfaced again in February. At one point the expression “the meat of the issue” was said, with the courtroom laughing in response. Later the Defendant’s barrister remarked, “I am trying to avoid making the point about counting chickens.” An argument was also described as being “plucked out of thin air.”
In a case concerning physical suffering, that kind of wordplay is not neutral. It injects humour into proceedings fundamentally concerned with the subjection of animals to practices which cause suffering. It diminishes the gravity of what is under examination and distances the discussion from the animals themselves, and thus what is at stake.
Reasons to be hopeful
“It is the chickens who are directly affected.”
They were the wise words of the judge, a powerful reminder which brought back the focus on the animals.
In a courtroom shaped by technical legal argument and mocking language, that sentence was a sharp reminder pulling the room back to what really matters.
The case will ultimately turn on whether the government acted lawfully. But the judge’s words were a reminder that animals are the sentient beings bearing the real life consequences of government decision making.
The law recognises animals worthy of legal protection. How we talk about animals in the courtroom and beyond should reflect that recognition.
