Results

Displaying 31 - 40 of 111
Title Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
Larobina v R [2009] NSWDC 79

The appellant appeal against a conviction for animal cruelty sustained in a lower court. After an examination of the elements of the statutory offense, it was found that the charge upon which the conviction was sustained was unknown to law.

Case
Yanner v Eaton (1999) 201 CLR 351 (1999) 105 LGERA 71; (1999) 166 ALR 258; (1999) 73 ALJR 1518; (1999) 18 Leg Rep 2; (1999) 107 A Crim R 551; [1999] HCA 53

The appellant was a member of the Gunnamulla clan of Gangalidda tribe from Gulf of Carpentaria and killed estuarine crocodiles by harpooning. He was charged under the Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (Qld) with taking fauna without holding a licence. The Court ultimately found that the appellant's right to hunt crocodiles in accordance with the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) were not extinguished by the Fauna Conservation Act.

Case
Beaumont v Cahir [2004] ACTSC 97

The appellant landed a hot air balloon in a paddock occupied by a dressage horse belonging to the respondent. The horse was spooked and impaled itself on fencing. The appellant was liable for the cost of reinstating the horse to health and was not permitted to euthanise the horse and find a replacement.

Case
AU - Wildlife - Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 (NSW) Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002

The objects of this Act are: to provide for the effective management of introduced species of game animals; and to promote responsible and orderly hunting of those game animals on public and private land and of certain pest animals on public land.

Statute
AU - Domestic Animals Act 2000 (ACT) Domestic Animals Act 2000

The Domestic Animals Act 2000 is a piece of legislation in the Australian Capital Territory of relevance to domestic animals. The Act encourages responsible pet ownership and outlines the obligations of pet owners to their animals and to the community. It also provides for the identification and registration of certain animals.

Statute
Australia -Farming - Agricultural Act This Act allows the chief executive to make standards on all matters related to agriculture, including labelling, the marking of stocks and the selling or using of hormonal growth promotants. The chief executive may also establish an advisory committee on agricultural standards. For persons whose interests are adversely affected by a decision of the chief executive under this Act or by an inspector’s decision, this act provides appeal provisions. Enforcement and penalty provisions are also included. Statute
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
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

Pages