|The Duck Shooting Case
|(1997) 189 CLR 579
|(1997) 146 ALR 248; (1997) 71 ALJR 837;  12 Leg Rep 14;  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.
|The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) Pty Ltd and Minister for Environment and Heritage
|(2005) 93 ALD 594
|(2005) 41 AAR 508;  AATA 1210
Zoos in New South Wales and Victoria sought to import asian elephants for conservation and exhibition. The Tribunal considered whether the elephants were being imported "for the purposes of conservation breeding or propagation", the zoos were "suitably equipped to manage, confine and care for the animals, including meeting the behavioural and biological needs of the animals", the importation of the elephants would "be detrimental to, or contribute to trade which is detrimental to ... the survival .... or ... recovery in nature of" Asian elephants and whether the elephants were "obtained in contravention of, [or] their importation would ... involve the contravention of, any law". The importation was allowed.
|The welfare of greyhounds in Australian racing: has the industry run its course?
|Alexandra McEwan and Krishna Skandakumar
|6 AAPLJ 53
|Australia’s greyhound racing industry is reportedly the third largest in the world. Over fifty racetracks operate across the country, with the majority located in New South Wales. In 2009 the total 'stake money,' that is, the amount put at risk by punters, was $73,773 million nationwide. This article explores welfare issues in the greyhound industry, arguing that, despite recent regulatory reforms and industry efforts to improve welfare standards, there is sufficient evidence available to conclude Australia should follow the lead set by the USA and begin dismantling a sporting industry which has run its course. In short, this form of animal use can no longer be justified as 'necessary.'
|Towers-Hammon v Burnett
| QDC 282
The respondent pleaded guilty to bashing several cats with an iron bar causing four deaths. The dead cats, along with one severely beaten but still alive kitten, were placed in a bag and disposed of in a charity clothing bin. On appeal, it was held that the trial judge failed to have sufficient regard to the callous nature of the respondent's actions and the respondent was sentenced to three months' imprisonment.
|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.
|Veterinary Surgeons Investigating Committee v. Lloyd
|2002 WL 31928523, 134 A Crim R 441
|2002 NSWADT 284
Appeal of agency determination of veterinarian malpractice for failure to detect ring worms in a cat. Long case with full discussion of process of administrative hearing and the standards by which to decide if an action is malpractice.
|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.
|Whaling in the Antarctic
Brief Summary of Whaling in the Antarctic
|Wildlife Protection Association of Australia Inc and Minister for Environment and Heritage and Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc and Animals Australia and Flinders Council
| AATA 953
The respondent Minister made declarations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) that particular plans relating to Bennett's wallabies and Tasmanian pademelons were approved wildlife trade management plans. The applicant questioned whether the plans permitted the inhumane hunting of wallabies and treatment of joeys as well as the basis upon which the quotas were derived. The tribunal found both matters satisfactorily addressed though further monitoring measures were deemed to be prudent.
|Windridge Farm Pty Ltd v Grassi
| NSWSC 335
The defendants entered the plaintiff's land, containing a piggery, with the intention of taking photographs and film footage to establish that the plaintiff failed to meet certain standards. The defendants' argument that the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief because of 'unclean hands' was dismissed by the court. The court also found that the defensive argument based on 'implied freedom of political communication' did not have application in the circumstances.