07.05.26
Domestic abuse remains one of the most significant and resource-intensive challenges facing policing in England and Wales. While Clare’s Law has become an important safeguarding tool, our latest report identifies a critical blind spot: the failure to consistently recognise animal abuse as a risk factor in disclosure decisions.
Evidence shows that animal abuse is frequently linked to coercive control and escalating violence. Yet it is inconsistently recorded, rarely disclosed and not explicitly recognised in current statutory guidance.
An Animal Protection Disclosure Scheme – known as Holly’s Law – would be a practical and proportionate first step toward closing this gap and strengthening protections for both people and animals.
The Scale and Cost of Domestic Abuse
Domestic abuse is not only widespread but disproportionately demanding on policing. Police forces record an estimated 1.3 to 1.4 million domestic abuse incidents every year, including around 800,000 crimes. Domestic abuse accounts for around 15% of all recorded crime and a third of all violent offences.
The societal cost is estimated at £78 billion annually, including policing, healthcare, housing and lost productivity. More than 250 deaths each year are linked to domestic abuse, which is associated with around 20–25% of all homicides.
The Role of Clare’s Law
Clare’s Law allows police to disclose a partner’s history of abuse through:
- Right to Ask (RTA) – individuals request information
- Right to Know (RTK) – police proactively disclose risk
It is designed to empower potential victims with information before harm escalates. However, its effectiveness depends entirely on the quality and scope of the intelligence being considered.
Our Investigation Overview
Between February and April 2026, Naturewatch Foundation submitted 43 Freedom of Information requests to police forces across England and Wales.
Key findings:
- 41 forces responded. Lancashire and Essex did not.
- Forces reported around 75,000 applications annually through the RTA and RTK routes combined. The true figure is likely to be significantly higher due to incomplete responses.
- Disclosure rates ranged from 14% to 57%.
This wide variation indicates inconsistent application and decision-making across forces.
Transparency also varied:
- Only one force provided specific cost data (£52,281).
- The Metropolitan and Kent Police claimed a Section 12(1) exemption to providing the data, suggesting it wasn’t readily available.
- One force (Avon and Somerset Police) demonstrated best practice through proactive publication of data.
Police rely on multiple intelligence systems to consider disclosures, including:
- Police National Computer (PNC)
- Police National Database (PND)
- ViSOR (Violent and Sex Offender Register)
- Local intelligence systems
These systems are intended to provide a comprehensive risk picture, but in practice, a key category of risk is often missing.
This is particularly concerning given the recommendations of the 2004 Bichard Inquiry into the Soham murders, which called for improvements in how “soft intelligence” – including allegations, concerns and non-conviction information – is recorded and shared.
The Critical Gap: Animal Abuse Intelligence
Our investigation highlights systemic issues in the way animal abuse is recorded:
- Animal abuse offences are often misrecorded (such as under ‘criminal damage’).
- Intelligence relating to animal abuse is inconsistent or absent from national databases.
- ViSOR includes animal abuse only when linked to other risks.
As a result, animal abuse is frequently invisible in safeguarding decisions. This creates a dangerous gap, particularly given established links between animal cruelty, coercive control and escalating interpersonal violence.
Current statutory guidance under Clare’s Law includes a list of offences that may be disclosed, but animal-related offences are not included. This omission has two consequences:
- It signals that animal abuse is not a priority risk factor.
- It leads to inconsistent consideration of animal abuse in practice.
The Wider Policy Context: No Animal Abusers Register
For more than a decade, there has been sustained public and parliamentary pressure for stronger measures to address animal abuse, including:
- Multiple petitions (200,000+ signatures combined).
- Parliamentary debates and committee recommendations.
- Continued public concern.
Despite this, the UK Government has repeatedly stated that it has no plans to introduce a national animal abusers register.
Instead, reliance remains on court-imposed bans, local enforcement and animal welfare organisations. These tools are reactive, fragmented, and difficult to access. There is no simple way for partners, employers or rescue organisations to identify risk.
Why we support Holly’s Law:
Rather than a full public register, our report supports the Animal Protection Disclosure Scheme (“Holly’s Law”) – modelled directly on Clare’s Law.
Under the scheme:
- Individuals or organisations could request information about a person’s history of animal abuse.
- Police could disclose relevant information where safeguarding thresholds are met.
- Decisions would be made on a case-by-case and risk-based basis, not by public or automatic disclosure.
- Prevention, not just punishment
Holly’s Law would help people make informed decisions before harm occurs, particularly in:
- Domestic settings
- Animal rehoming situations
- Employment involving animals
- Proportionate and privacy-conscious
Unlike a public register, Holly’s Law would:
- Limit disclosure to appropriate safeguarding circumstances
- Protect data rights
- Align with existing safeguarding frameworks
- Recognition of linked harms
The scheme would formally acknowledge the connection between:
- Animal abuse
- Domestic abuse
- Escalating violence
- Building on existing systems
There is no need to create entirely new infrastructure:
- Processes already exist under Clare’s Law
- Police are already trained in risk-based disclosure
Closing the Gap
Our report identifies a clear and urgent issue that a known indicator of serious harm, animal abuse, is not systematically used in safeguarding decisions.
At the same time, domestic abuse remains a high-harm, high-cost national priority, Clare’s Law is already an established mechanism for prevention, public and political concern about animal abuse continues to grow.
“Holly’s Law” is not a radical overhaul. It is a targeted, evidence-based extension of an existing safeguarding tool. It offers greater consistency, better use of intelligence and earlier intervention.
A disclosure-based system for animal abuse may not solve everything, but it is a credible, practical first step toward protecting both people and animals from preventable harm.
Clare’s Law, also known as the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (DVDS) is a police policy giving people the right to know if their current or ex-partner has any previous history of violence or abuse. The scheme is named after Clare Wood, who was murdered by her abusive ex-boyfriend in 2009.
