Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia - Anti Cruelty - POCTAA General Regulations 1996 | POCTAA Regs cl | Agency Citation | This Regulation is the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (General) Regulation 1996 for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (POCTAA) 1979. The regulations may prescribe guidelines relating to the welfare of species of farm or companion animals. Compliance or failure to comply with guidelines prescribed by regulation under this section is admissible as evidence in proceedings relating to compliance or failure to comply with POCTAA or the regulations. | Administrative | |
| Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks & Wildlife Service | [2003] NSWSC 457 |
The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent from conducting an aerial shooting of goats as part of a 'cull'. The applicants claimed that the aerial shooting constituted cruelty as the goats, once wounded, would die a slow death. An injunction was granted to the applicants pending final hearing of the substantive action against the aerial shooting. |
Case | ||
| RSPCA v O'Loughlan | [2007] SASC 113 |
The appellant, the RSPCA, relied on the fact that a horse, once in RSPCA care, had a significantly improved condition in comparison to that described as 'emaciated' while in the respondent's care. The respondent claimed that the horse's condition fluctuated depending on the presence of mares in heat during summer and that she had tried several changes to the feed to counter a loss in weight. On appeal, the appellate judge did not disturb the trial judge's finding and confirmed that the respondent's conduct was reasonable in the circumstances. |
Case | ||
| Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser | (1991) 1 VR 51 | (1990) Aust Torts Reports 81-027 |
Animal Liberation were injuncted from publishing words claiming animal cruelty in a circus or demonstrating against that circus. They were also found guilty of nuisance resulting from their demonstration outside that circus. On appeal, the injunctions were overturned although the finding of nuisance was upheld. |
Case | |
| AU - Wildlife - Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (Western Australia) | Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 |
The Act covers the protection of fauna, the taking of protected species, licence requirements and possible opportunities, the authority of wildlife officers, crown lands. The Department of Environment and Conservation is the primary agency responsible for conserving this biodiversity. This Act provides for the conservation and protection of wildlife. |
Statute | ||
| Turner v Cole | [2005] TASSC 72 |
RSPCA officers found a horse belonging to the applicant on the applicant's property and, after preparing the horse for transport, had to euthanise the animal when it collapsed. The applicant was convicted of failing to feed a horse which led to its serious disablement and eventual euthanisation. The applicant was unsuccessful on all issues on appeal and was liable for a fine of $4000 and prevention from owning 20 or more horses for five years. |
Case | ||
| AU - Farming - Stock Act 1915 (QLD) | Stock Act 1915 |
The Stock Act governs the treatment and welfare of stock or farm animals in Queensland. The purpose of the Act is to promote responsible animal care and protection, to provide standards for animal care and use, to protect industry in the event of a disease outbreak.
|
Statute | ||
| Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Environment & Conservation | [2007] NSWSC 221 |
The applicants sought to restrain a proposed aerial shooting of pigs and goats on interlocutory basis pending the outcome of a suit claiming the aerial shooting would constitute cruelty. It was found that the applicants did not have a 'special interest' and as such did not have standing to bring the injunction. The application was dismissed. |
Case | ||
| Department of Local Government and Regional Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd | Western Australia Magistrates Court, 8 February 2008, Magistrate C.P. Crawford |
The central allegation was that the defendants transported the sheep in a way likely to cause unnecessary harm. Magistrate Crawford found that the sheep, some of which died from inanition, suffered distress and harm and that this harm was unnecessary. Proof of actual harm, however, was unnecessary as it only had to be shown that it was likely that the sheep would suffer harm. This required evidence pointing only to the conditions onboard the ship, and voyage plan, as at the first day. The defences of necessity and honest and reasonable belief were both dismissed. |
Case | ||
| RSPCA v. Stojcevski | 2002 WL 228890, 134 A Crim R 441 | 2002 SASC 39 |
Appeal against the order of the Magistrate dismissing a complaint - prevention of cruelty to animals - respondent charged with ill treating an animal in that failed to take reasonable steps to alleviate any pain suffered by the animal who had a fractured leg bone contrary to sec 13(1) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1985. Dismissal was upheld and court found that defendant did not understand dog was in pain and had and was going to take reasonable steps. |
Case |