|Yanner v Eaton||(1999) 201 CLR 351||(1999) 105 LGERA 71; (1999) 166 ALR 258; (1999) 73 ALJR 1518; (1999) 18 Leg Rep 2; (1999) 107 A Crim R 551;  HCA 53||
The appellant was a member of the Gunnamulla clan of Gangalidda tribe from Gulf of Carpentaria and killed estuarine crocodiles by harpooning. He was charged under the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) with taking fauna without holding a licence. The Court ultimately found that the appellant's right to hunt crocodiles in accordance with the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) were not extinguished by the Fauna Conservation Act.
|AU - Live export - Export Control Act 1982||Act No. 47 of 1982 as amended||The purpose of this Act is to control the export of certain goods. In the Act, 'eligible live animals' are defined as 'prescribed goods consisting of live animals'. The Act sets out both the export and entry requirements for prescribed goods and the accreditation scheme concerning veterinarians. It also outlines the various offences that both veterinarians and exporters may be charged with, as well as details the general enforcement powers of authorised officers.||Statute|
|Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc.||860 F. Supp. 2d 1216 (W.D. Wash. 2012) rev'd, 708 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) and rev'd, 725 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2013)||The Institute of Cetacean Research, a Japanese whaling group, sued the direct action environmental protection organization Sea Shepherd, claiming that Sea Shepherd’s actions taken against the whaling group’s vessels in the Antarctic are violent and dangerous. The Institute claimed that Sea Shepherd had rammed whaling ships, thrown dangerous objects on to the ships, attempted to prevent them from moving forward, and navigated its vessels in such a way as to endanger the Japanese ships and their crews. The Institute’s request for an injunction was denied when the Court held that the Institute did not establish the necessary factors. The Court did state, however, that though Sea Shepherd’s acts did not constitute piracy, it did not approve of the organization’s methods or mission.||Case|
|Beaumont v Cahir|| 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.
|Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser||(2008) 249 ALR 445||(2008) 169 FCR 583;  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.
|Mark, Stoner, Setter and Pearson v Henshaw||(1998) 155 ALR 118||(1998) 85 FCR 555;  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.
|Whaling in the Antarctic||Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan), 2010 Judgment.||In June 2010, Australia commenced proceedings against Japan at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging that Japan has continued an extensive whaling program in breach of its obligations as a signatory to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW). At issue was the moratorium on commercial whaling agreed upon in the 1980s. According to Australia, though Japan claimed to be killing whales purely for scientific reasons, the true purpose of the program was commercial. Japan did not deny that it was killing whales in the Antarctic, but claimed instead that because the ICRW grants each nation state the right to issue licenses for scientific whaling as it sees fit, Japan’s whaling program was legal. The ICJ ruled that Japan's Antarctic whaling program was not actually for scientific whaling and must end.||Case|
|AU - Nature Conservation Act 1980 ( ACT)||Nature Conservation Act 1980||
An Act to make provision for the protection and conservation of native animals and native plants, and for the preservation of areas for those purposes.
The Act creates the office of Conservator of Flora and Fauna and the
|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.
|Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Western Australia Inc v Hammarquist||(2003) 138 A Crim R 329|| 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.