|Daniele v Weissenberger
|2002 WL 31813949,136 A Crim R 390
|2002 WASCA 346
Court uphold conviction for failure to provide food and water for horses. Even thought not the owner, he was the responsible party. Sentence of $3,000 fine and suspended 3 month was not excessive.
|Dart v Singer
| QCA 75
The applicants pleaded guilty to a number of charges under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (Qld) following the seizure of 113 live dogs, one cat, 488 rats, 73 mice, 12 guinea pigs and 11 birds from their premises due to unsanitary and inappropriate living conditions. The applicants claimed that RSPCA officers were acting ultra vires and that a stay preventing the RSCPA from parting with the animals should be effected. The applicants' argument failed.
|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.
|Detailed Discussion of Australian Live Export Laws
|Jordan M. Sosnowski
|Animal Legal & Historical Center
This article discusses the Australian live export legislation in detail. It also outlines the main shortcomings of the legislation and outlines areas that are in need of reform. Finally, the article proposes future options that could possibly replace the live export industry in Australia, or at the very least, alleviate some of the current animal welfare concerns.
|Detailed Discussion of the Laws Governing Kangaroo Culling in Australia
|Animal Legal & Historical Center.
This article provides a detailed discussion of the laws governing kangaroo culling in Australia. The paper analyses both the commercial and non-commercial industry and makes an evaluation as to the legislation's effectiveness. The article also discusses other issues such as enforcement, animal and consumer welfare, as well as the sustainability of the industry.
|Fleet v District Court of New South Wales
| NSWCA 363
The appellant's dog was removed by police officers and later euthanised. The dog was emaciated and suffering from numerous ailments. The appellant was charged and convicted with an animal cruelty offence and failure to state his name and address when asked. On appeal, it was found that the court had failed to address the elements of the animal cruelty offence and that the charge of failing to state name and address could not stand.
|Holland v Crisafulli
| QSC 199
A dog, on two separate occasions, entered residential premises, turned over a cage and killed a guinea pig. The applicant claimed that this was insufficient evidence for the dog to be declared 'dangerous'. The judge found that a dog's propensity to pursue one animal should not be distinguished from a propensity to pursue all animals and that the finding of the dog as 'dangerous' should stand.
|Humane Society International Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd
|(2008) 244 ALR 161
|(2008) 165 FCR 510; (2008) 99 ALD 534;  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.
|Inst. of Cetacean Research v. Sea Shepherd Conservation Soc'y
|2014 WL 3579639 (W.D. Wash. July 21, 2014)
|After the International Court of Justice ruled against Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, Sea Shepherd moved to dismiss the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling regarding Sea Shepherd’s own actions in the Antarctic. Sea Shepherd claimed that because the Institute had announced that it would not engage in whaling in the 2014-15 season, its claim was moot. This argument, though, ignored the fact the Institute also stated that it plans to resume whaling in the future, leading the Court to dismiss the motion.
|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.