Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beaumont v Cahir | [2004] ACTSC 97 |
The appellant landed a hot air balloon in a paddock occupied by a dressage horse belonging to the respondent. The horse was spooked and impaled itself on fencing. The appellant was liable for the cost of reinstating the horse to health and was not permitted to euthanise the horse and find a replacement. |
Case | |
| AU - Livestock - Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 | Act No. 206 of 1997 |
The purpose of this Act is to control meat and live-stock exports both within and outside Australia. 'Live-stock' includes cattle, calves, sheep, lambs and goats, however this definition is not exhaustive and may include other animals if prescribed. The Act covers export licences, quotas and enforcement. It also outlines the role of industry bodies and policies. |
Statute | |
| Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc. | 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013) | 2013 A.M.C. 169513, Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 52422013, Daily Journal D.A.R. 6656 | After the Institute was denied an injunction in the trial court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction preventing Sea Shepherd from attacking any of the Institute’s vessels in any way and from coming within 500 yards of any Institute vessel operating in the open sea. | Case |
| Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser | (2008) 249 ALR 445 | (2008) 169 FCR 583; [2008] FCAFC 156 |
The trial judge held that the respondent's placing of a ham mixture in the feed of sheep prior to live export was covered by the defence of dominant purpose for environmental protection under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). On appeal, the court held that the respondent's actions were not an attempt at environmental protection but rather sought to prevent what he believed would be cruelty to those animals on board the ship during live export and upon arrival. The case was referred back to the Federal Court for assessment of damages. |
Case |
| Mark, Stoner, Setter and Pearson v Henshaw | (1998) 155 ALR 118 | (1998) 85 FCR 555; [1998] FCA 556 |
The four appellants, members of Animal Liberation, entered premises containing battery hens without permission. This was done allegedly on concern as to the treatment of those battery hens and the appellants claimed this constituted a reasonable excuse. After a second appeal, the convictions were upheld and it was found that the appellants did not have a reasonable excuse for trespass. |
Case |
| AU - Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA) | Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 |
An Act to make better provision for the use, protection and management of certain public lands and waters and the flora and fauna thereof, to establish authorities to be responsible therefor, and for incidental or connected purposes. |
Statute | |
| Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Commerical Purposes | The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies. It has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering. | Statute | ||
| Australia - Anti Cruelty - New South Wales Regulations |
The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 2006 are authorative in the state of New South Wales. |
Administrative | ||
| Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia Inc v Hammarquist | (2003) 138 A Crim R 329 | [2003] WASCA 35 |
The respondents were charged with nine counts of inflicting unnecessary suffering on an animal, a cow, and one count of of subjecting 50 cows to unnecessary suffering. The trial judge found the respondents wrongly charged and dismissed the charges without the prosecution clearly articulating its case. The trial judge was incorrect to dismiss the charges for want of particulars. The trial magistrate was also incorrect to dismiss the tenth charge for duplicity. In some circumstances it is possible to include multiple offences in the same charge where the matters of complaint are substantially the same. |
Case |
| AU - Parks - National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) | National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 |
An Act to provide for the establishment and management of reserves for public benefit and enjoyment; to provide for the conservation of wildlife in a natural environment; and for other purposes.
|
Statute |