Results
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Agency 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 | |
| Australia - Animal Welfare - (Broiler Chickens: Fully Housed) Code of Welfare 2003 | Code of Welfare No. 1 | This code applies to all persons responsible for the welfare of broiler chickens in controlled environment broiler production systems. The pre-hatched chick that is in the last half of development is also covered by this code. In controlled environment broiler production systems, broiler chickens are kept in enclosed housing and are reliant on human management for all their daily requirements. The rearing of broiler chickens, if it is to be done well, requires both experience and the observance of high standards. Unless that work is done well, the welfare of the birds cannot be adequately protected. This code is intended to encourage all those responsible for its implementation to adopt the highest standard of husbandry, care and handling, to equal or exceed the minimum standards. | Administrative | ||
| 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 - Cruelty - Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) | Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 | The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (POCTAA) is the primary piece of legislation that aims to protect animals from cruelty in New South Wales, Australia. POCTAA establishes certain acts or omissions as offences and also provides defences to a charge under the Act in certain circumstances. POCTAA prohibits cruelty and aggravated cruelty generally, as well as a number of other types of activities, including neglect, confinement, abandonment, failure to act in certain circumstances, some transport-related activities, inappropriate use, mutilation, poisoning, torture, fighting and baiting, certain hunting and trapping related activities, selling severely injured animals and failing to take action where an animal is injured by a vehicle. | Statute | ||
| AU - Research - Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW) | Animal Research Act 1985 |
The NSW Act was introduced to protect the welfare of animals by ensuring that their use in research is always humane, considerate, responsible and justified. The 1995 Regulation incorporated the Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes into the legislation. Quorum The quorum for a meeting of the Panel is 7 members of the Panel, of whom: (a) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (a) or (b), (b) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (c) or (d), and (c) at least one shall be a member appointed in accordance with section 6 (2) (e), (f), (g) or (h). |
Statute | ||
| 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 |