R v Peter Stanley

On  24 September 2024, Peter Stanley was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment to be served concurrently, having pleaded guilty to three charges of publishing obscene articles under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. He was charged for uploading three videos depicting extreme animal cruelty to a Facebook group dedicated to monkey torture. Despite claiming that he had yielded to morbid curiosity, the sentencing judge determined that Mr Stanley’s actions encouraged the creation and distribution of such material, which warranted a harsh sentence . 

Facts

Peter Stanley, a 42-year-old man with no prior convictions, became an active member of a monkey torture social media group called ‘Monkey Sauce’, because he hated monkeys. The group shared disturbing content depicting bestiality, pornography, and images of tortured monkeys and extreme animal cruelty acts resulting in the death of primates. He viewed many of these images, including 26 linked to torture. 

Stanley was charged for uploading three videos showing the torture and killing of baby monkeys, including horrible acts of mutilation and extreme violence that the sentencing judge found 'have no place in any civilised society’. He also made comments in the videos, such as ‘A fave of mine, this one’ or ‘Now, do as you are told.'

His participation in these groups was voluntary, and he admitted to engaging with such images due to ‘morbid curiosity.’

His psychological assessment indicated he had low self-esteem, difficulty forming relationships, and a susceptibility to harmful online communities, and would benefit from a mental health treatment. As a result of his actions, he lost his job and a long-term relationship. 

The Law 

Stanley was charged under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which makes it illegal to publish obscene material. The Act applies to written material, sound recordings, films, or pictures. A matter will be obscene if its effect is to 'deprave and corrupt' those who are likely to read, see, or hear it. Offences under the Act could carry up to five years in prison. 

Sentencing 

Since there were no specific Sentencing Guidelines for offences under the Obscene Publications Act, the judge drew an analogy with the Guideline for animal cruelty cases, characterising the offences as  High Culpability and Category 1 Harm, with a starting point of two years in prison for a single offence and a range of up to three years six months. 

Taking into account Mr Stanley’s guilty plea and previous good character, the judge handed down a sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment. 

In his sentencing remarks, the judge highlighted the severity of the offences. He described the images as ‘utterly repellent’ and said that they had no place in a civilised society. He further stated that engaging with these videos can stimulate the market for such ‘unlawful horror’ and it ‘encourages those who make those horrifying images to continue to carry out such depravity’. 

Commentary 

The use of the Obscene Publications Act in this context is an important development and something for animal charities who work on the proliferation of images depicting online suffering on the internet to consider going forward. Sarah Kite, a former mental health social worker and the manager of the advocacy group Action for Primates, provided witness evidence in the case, bringing to the court’s attention that the use of the media to post appalling videos about animal cruelty and killing has escalated in the last few years. In her evidence, she stated that graphic videos have now started to appear on Facebook and are accessible to all users, including children, with social media companies not sufficiently proactive and often failing to remove such content. 

The enactment of the Online Safety Act 2023 marks a key step towards combating this type of content. The Act imposes a duty of care on social media companies and search engines with regard to illegal content and content that is harmful to children. The offence of animal cruelty under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 constitutes illegal content under the Act, which means that social media companies now have a duty to remove this content provided that the content is live-streamed or it encourages others to commit animal cruelty. It remains to be seen how social media companies apply these requirements in practice. 

Getting advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com.