98 A Nurse mental distress and not just the physical discomfort or pain associated with cruelty offences under previous legislation’ (Nurse and Ryland 2013, p 9) Unnecessary suffering can thus be caused either by taking action which causes unnecessary suffering or by failing to take appropriate steps to prevent suffering and being neglectful of an individual non-human companion Inflicting pain, which may occur for example in cruelty cases, is not in itself sufficient to constitute unnecessary suffering even where extreme pain is caused, as the pain may be caused for allegedly ‘beneficial’ reasons such as in veterinary surgery to alleviate more serious harm caused to an animal Pain may also be a by-product of other medical treatment where temporary pain or discomfort is caused with the aim of reducing overall suffering It becomes necessary, therefore, to distinguish between necessary suffering caused to a non-human companion and unnecessary suffering; in effect, that which is excessive or avoidable In making this distinction the courts are able to take into account a number of factors such as whether the suffering could have been avoided or whether it was incidental to a legitimate purpose Factors to be considered include whether the suffering could have been reduced, was carried out in compliance with legislation, the conditions of a licence or a code of practice issued on a statutory basis Nurse and Ryland (2014, p 3) note, for example, that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 does not apply to any act lawfully carried out under the auspices of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 which provides authorisation for scientific use of non-human animals, notwithstanding the ethical and moral objections that may exist in respect of such procedures The courts might also consider the purpose of the conduct, the proportionality of the suffering, and whether the conduct that caused the suffering was that of a reasonably competent and humane person Singer (1995, pp 9–13) notes that the Committee on Cruelty to Animals set up in 1951 was satisfied that animals can suffer from acute fear and terror UK animal welfare law has arguably incorporated utilitarian principles of ‘equal’ consideration for humans and non-human animals in respect of minimising pain and suffering so far as is practicable in order that we make our lives as free from cruelty as possible and avoid the infliction of pain and suffering on animals and humans Radford (2001, pp 198–199) argues that historical definitions of cruelty dating back to the UK 1911 and 1912 protection of animals acts, which included the concept of ill-treating or terrifying an animal, indicate ‘that Parliament intended cruelty to encompass the infliction of both psychological and physical suffering’ The concept of unnecessary suffering is thus wide in scope and includes mental as well as physical suffering which incorporates both acts and