WHAT is a “Pest”?

Ronald is charged by the RSPCA with serious animal cruelty under the Crimes Act, alleging that he committed a serious act of cruelty upon a dog, with the intention of inflicting severe pain and that he seriously injured and killed the animal.

Ronald appealed his conviction by the Local Court arguing that he had a valid defence because the dog was a “pest animal” and that his conduct amounted to nothing more than “extermination of pest animals”.

The Court of appeal accepted that the dog was a “pest animal” because it was threatening, attacking and injuring livestock and accordingly upheld Ronald’s appeal.

The RSPCA appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court finds that an intention of inflicting severe pain requires an intention to bring about that result as opposed to an intention which may only have the consequence of causing severe pain.

However, the Court finds that Ronald’s conduct did not engage the defence of “extermination of pest animals” because the Companion Animals Act requires that a dog be destroyed “in a manner that causes it to die quickly and without unnecessary suffering”.

The Court also held that a single act of damage on the part of an individual animal is insufficient to constitute an animal as a “pest” and that such a finding required a propensity or disposition to cause damage to persons, animals, property or crops.

Ultimately, the Court ruled that the elements of the offence were not established and that it was not just for the conviction to stand.

The case raises interesting moral questions regarding society’s labelling of particular animals and why it is acceptable to “exterminate” some animals but not others and why “causing severe pain” to animals is seen to be justified in certain circumstances.

If YOU would like a particular issue addressed, please email Manny at manny.wood@ticliblaxland.com.au or call him on (02) 6648 7487.

 

By Manny WOOD, Solicitor