Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AU - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 | The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA) is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Australia. POCTAA establishes certain acts or omissions as offences and also provides defences to a charge under the Act in certain circumstances. POCTAA prohibits cruelty and aggravated cruelty generally, as well as a number of other types of activities, including neglect, confinement, abandonment, failure to act in certain circumstances, some transport-related activities, inappropriate use, mutilation, poisoning, torture, fighting and baiting, certain hunting and trapping related activities, selling severely injured animals and failing to take action where an animal is injured by a vehicle. | Statute | ||
| Australia - Animal Welfare - (Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed) Code of Welfare 2003 | Code of Welfare No. 1 | This code applies to all persons responsible for the welfare of broiler chickens in controlled environment broiler production systems. The pre-hatched chick that is in the last half of development is also covered by this code. In controlled environment broiler production systems, broiler chickens are kept in enclosed housing and are reliant on human management for all their daily requirements. The rearing of broiler chickens, if it is to be done well, requires both experience and the observance of high standards. Unless that work is done well, the welfare of the birds cannot be adequately protected. This code is intended to encourage all those responsible for its implementation to adopt the highest standard of husbandry, care and handling, to equal or exceed the minimum standards. | Administrative | ||
| Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser | (2007) 243 ALR 356 | (2007) ATPR 42-189; [2007] FCA 1535 |
The applicants held sheep in a pen pending live export. The respondent broke into that pen and put pork products in their feed rendering them unfit for export to countries whose markets had religious proscriptions against eating pork products. The court found that the respondent's conduct did not amount to 'hindering' as defined in the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and that his action was for the dominant purpose of environmental protection, which included protecting sheep from the conditions suffered during the live export trade. |
Case | |
| Australia Animal Protection Law Journal | This page lists the volumes of the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal. Volume 1 (2008) through Volume 9 (2013) are available at the top of page as pdf downloads. Below this list of pdf links is a list of the table of contents for each volume of the journal. The table of contents contains the names of the articles, authors, and page numbers for each journal. More information about the journal is available at the Australian Animal Protection Law Journal website at http://animalprotectionlawjournal.com/. | Policy | |||
| Mansbridge v Nichols | [2004] VSC 530 |
The appellant was convicted of seven offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) related to the appellant's treatment of merino sheep in her care. The appellant was successful in overturning three of the charges on the basis that they were latently duplicitous or ambiguous. The appellant was unsuccessful in arguing that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons. |
Case | ||
| Brayshaw v Liosatos | [2001] ACTSC 2 |
The appellant had informations laid against him alleging that he, as a person in charge of animals, neglected cattle 'without reasonable excuse' by failing to provide them with food. The appellant had been informed by a veterinarian that his treatment of the cattle was potentially a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) and that they were in poor condition. The evidence admitted did not rule out the possibility that the appellant's feeding of the cattle accorded with 'maintenance rations' and the convictions were overturned. |
Case | ||
| AU - Research - Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW) | Animal Research Act 1985 |
The NSW Act was introduced to protect the welfare of animals by ensuring that their use in research is always humane, considerate, responsible and justified. The 1995 Regulation incorporated the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes into the legislation. Quorum The quorum for a meeting of the Panel is 7 members of the Panel, of whom: (a) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (a) or (b), (b) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (c) or (d), and (c) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (e), (f), (g) or (h). |
Statute | ||
| People v. Gordon | 85 N.Y.S.3d 725, (N.Y.Crim.Ct. Oct. 4, 2018) | 61 Misc.3d 966, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 28306, 2018 WL 4837574 (N.Y.Crim.Ct. Oct. 4, 2018) | This New York case reflects Defendant's motion to dismiss the "accusatory instrument" in the interests of justice (essentially asking the complaint to be dismissed) for violating Agricultural and Markets Law (AML) § 353, Overdriving, Torturing and Injuring Animals or Failure to Provide Proper Sustenance for Animals. Defendant's primary argument is that she is not the owner of the dog nor is she responsible for care of the dog. The dog belongs to her "abusive and estranged" husband. The husband left the dog in the care of their daughter, who lives on the second floor above defendant. When the husband left for Florida, he placed the dog in the backyard attached to his and defendant's ground floor apartment. The dog did not have proper food, water, or shelter, and slowly began to starve resulting in emaciation. While defendant asserts she has been a victim of domestic violence who has no criminal record, the People counter that defendant was aware of the dog's presence at her residence and allowed the dog to needlessly suffer. This court noted that defendant's motion is time-barred and must be denied. Further, despite the time bar, defendant did not meet her burden to dismiss in the interests of justice. The court noted that, even viewing animals as property, failure to provide sustenance of the dog caused it to suffer needlessly. In fact, the court quoted from in Matter of Nonhuman Rights Project, Inc. v. Lavery (in which denied a writ of habeas corpus for two chimpanzees) where the court said "there is not doubt that [a chimpanzee] is not merely a thing." This buttressed the court's decision with regard to the dog here because "he Court finds that their protection from abuse and neglect are very important considerations in the present case." Defendant's motion to dismiss in the interest of justice was denied. | Case | |
| AU - Cruelty - Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) | Queensland Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 |
The purposes of this Act are to promote the responsible care and use of animals; provide standards for the care and use of animals that--achieve a reasonable balance between the welfare of animals and the interests of persons whose livelihood is dependent on animals; and to allow for the effect of advancements in scientific knowledge about animal biology and changes in community expectations about practices involving animals; to protect animals from unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable pain; to ensure the use of animals for scientific purposes is accountable, open and responsible. Attached pdf is the 2003 reprint. |
Statute | ||
| Crump v Equine Nutrition Systems Pty Ltd t/as Horsepower | [2006] NSWSC 512 |
The plaintiffs claimed that they purchased horse feed from the first respondent and that the feed was contaminated with monensin. The second respondent manufactured the feed. They claimed that as a result, one of their horses died and five others were permanently injured so that they could not be used for the desired purpose. After addressing several factual issues, the trial judge found for the plaintiffs in regards to the issue of negligence by the second respondent and proceeded to assess damages with regard to the economic value of the horses to the plaintiffs, the cost of replacement, loss of profits and maintenance. |
Case |