Results

Displaying 81 - 90 of 111
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
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
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 - 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
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 - Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (QLD) Threatened Species Protection Act 1995

The Nature Conservation Act 1992 is an act of the Parliament of Queensland that provides for the legislative protection of Queensland's threatened fauna and flora. As originally published, it provided for native animals and plants to be declared presumed extinct, endangered, vulnerable, rare or common. In 2004 the act was amended to more closely align with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources categories: presumed extinct was changed to extinct in the wild and common was changed to least concern.

Statute
Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd (2008) 244 ALR 161 (2008) 165 FCR 510; (2008) 99 ALD 534; [2008] FCA 3

The applicant, an incorporated public interest organisation, sought an injunction to restrain the respondent Japanese company which owned several ocean vessels engaged in, and likely to further engage in, whaling activities in waters claimed by Australia. It was found that the applicant had standing to bring the injunction and the respondent engaged in activities prohibited by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Orders were entered against against the respondent even though it had no assets in Australia and the likelihood of being able to enforce judgment was very low.

Case
The Duck Shooting Case (1997) 189 CLR 579 (1997) 146 ALR 248; (1997) 71 ALJR 837; [1997] 12 Leg Rep 14; [1997] HCA 31

The plaintiff was charged with being in an area set aside for hunting, during hunting season, without a licence. The plaintiff argued that he was there in order to collect dead and wounded ducks and endangered species and to draw media attention to the cruelty associated with duck shooting. The Court found that although the regulation under which the plaintiff was charged restricted the implied freedom of political communication, it was appropriate to protect the safety of persons with conflicting aims likely to be in the area.

Case
AU - Dog Act 1976 (WA) Dog Act 1976

An Act to amend and consolidate the law relating to the control and registration of dogs, the ownership and keeping of dogs and the obligations and rights of persons in relation thereto, and for incidental and other purposes.

Statute

Pages