|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
|RSPCA v O'Loughlan|| 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.
|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.
|Turner v Cole|| 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.
|AU - Cruelty - Animal Welfare Act (ACT Primary Act)||Animal Welfare Act 1992||The Australian Capital Territory enacted this Act 'for the promotion of animal welfare and for related purposes'. The Act is enforced by the RSPCA ACT and generally covers domestic animals.||Statute|
|Australia - Kangaroos - Shooting for Non-Commerical Purposes||The National Code of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and Wallabies for Non-commercial Purposes sets an achievable standard of humane conduct and is the minimum required of persons shooting kangaroos and wallabies for reasons other than commercial utilisation of kangaroo products (skins and meat). This Code has been produced to ensure that all persons intending to shoot free-living kangaroos or wallabies for non-commercial purposes undertake the shooting so that the animal is killed in a way that minimises pain and suffering.||Statute|
|AU - Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (ACT)||Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005||
The Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (Pest Act) creates a system to identify and control potential pest plants and animals in the ACT. It provides a strategic framework for pest management. The objects of the Pest Act are to protect the Australian Capital Territories land and aquatic resources from threats posed by pest plants and animals by identifying, declaring and then managing pest plants and animals.
|Animal Liberation Ltd v Department of Environment & Conservation|| 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.
|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.