Horse SAEquine Law Seminar

Future of Animal Law

3 JUNE 2017

RONAN O’BRIENLEGAL COUNSEL

RSPCA (SA)

RSPCA Reports

• 8 Inspectors to cover all of South Australia.

• Approx. 5,000 cruelty reports received and investigated.

• Reports vary by species, welfare issue, urgency, etc.

• About 1-2% of the matters reported to the RSPCA result in prosecutions.

• In-house lawyer conducts prosecutions under Animal Welfare Act 1985.

• The most common species reported to RSPCA are cats and dogs,however reports involving livestock are becoming more common.

Animal Welfare Offences – s13

Section 13(2)

A person who ill treats an animal is guilty of an offence

(Maximum penalty: $20,000 or imprisonment for 2 years)

But what constitutes ill treatment?

Animal Welfare Offences – s13

Section 13(3) provides examples of what constitutes ill treatment

Positive acts

• (a) intentionally, unreasonably or recklessly causes the animal

unnecessary harm

• (d) uses the animal in an organised animal fight

• (e) releases the animal from captivity for the purpose of it then

being hunted or killed

• (f) causes the animal to be killed or injured by another animal

• (g) kills the animal in a manner that causes the animal unnecessary

pain

What constitutes harm?

Any form of damage, pain, suffering or distress

(including unconsciousness), whether arising from

injury, disease or any other condition

Generally rely on the opinion of a Veterinarian to prove ‘harm’

Animal Welfare Offences – s13

Negligent acts

Underpin an owners minimal obligations

• s13(3)(b) being the owner of the animal

• (i) fails to provide appopriate, and adequate, food, water, living conditions

(whether temporary or permanent) or exercise); or

• (ii) fails to take reasonable steps to mitigate harm suffered by the animal; or

• (iii) abandons the animal; or

• (iv) neglects the animal so as to cause it harm

• 1 x Neglect so as to cause

harm

• Horse with bad teeth that had

lost substantial weight

• Once the teeth were treated

the horse could eat normally

Convicted

$700 fine

$1,800 costs

S32A order – No further horses for

2 years (other than current 3

horses)

King

• 1 x Fail to take reasonable

steps to mitigate harm

• Pony with a dislocated fetlock

left for months without

treatment

• Pony was euthanased

Convicted

1 year bond

$300 costs

S32 A order – No animals until

further order (except current 2

ponies)

Humphrey

• 1 x Fail to provide adequate

food

• Horse recovered and has been

adopted

Convicted

$200 fine

$700 costs

s32A order – No horses until

further order.

Mackay

Mitchell

• 2 x Neglect so as to cause

harm

• 2 Ponies with overgrown

hooves

• Both pones recovered and

have been adopted.

Convicted

2 year bond

$2,600 costs

S32 A order – No horses until

further order

• 2 x Neglect so as to cause

harm

• 2 extremely emaciated horses

• Both horses euthanased

Convicted

$5,000 fine

$700 costs

S32 A order – No animals until

further order

Harmon

RSPCA (SA) v Richards

August 2013

• Defendant pleads guilty to 7 x ill treat animal

• Restricted to owning 8 horses and 2 desexed dogs

October 2013

• 25 horses and 3 dogs on defendant’s property

• RSPCA Inspectors seize 17 horses and 2 undesexed dogs

Richards

• Defendant claims that

8 horses in Paddock A

belong to her while the

17 horses in Paddock B

belong to her daughter

• Daughter lives in the

same house as defendant

‘Owner’ not simply the person on paper ie. contract / microchip

Animal Welfare Act 1985 defines ‘owner’ as:

A person who has the custody and control of the animal

Magistrate Forrest said: “On her evidence, Ms Richards was resident

at and was the sole head tenant of the property with a free and

unrestricted right to enjoy the property as that status entailed. In

my view it is a necessary consequence of her status as head tenant

that Ms Richards had control over any animals that were at the

property from time to time. The evidence establishes that the

animals in question were ordinarily at the property so that their

presence there was not transitory or temporary.”

Richards

Magistrate Forrest also noted: “On the facts of this matter it is my

finding that in the circumstances where I have found that Ms

Richards had control of the animals, she also had custody of the

animals. The evidence establishes that Ms Richards was ordinarily at

the property on a daily basis whilst [her daughter] may have been

responsible for the daily feeding and watering of ‘her’ animals, they

were nonetheless within the safekeeping and care of Ms Richards.”

Guilty - $2,000 fine

Richards

Ideal Improvements to Animal Law

Increase penalties for breaches of court orders

Allow the court to make orders restricting animal ownership without

the need to criminally prosecute a person.

Allow the court to make orders restricting animal ownership whilst

charges relating to animal cruelty are before the court.

Interstate recognition of court orders.