<i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On
Animal law has the potential to initiate improvements for animal wellbeing. However, this largely depends on how effectively the law bridges the legal chasm between animal welfare and animal suffering, a chasm the authors refer to as the welfare gap. When the law does not adequately address this gap...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | Animals |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/22/3345 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1846154646526099456 |
|---|---|
| author | Kathryn Jurd Sophie Riley |
| author_facet | Kathryn Jurd Sophie Riley |
| author_sort | Kathryn Jurd |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Animal law has the potential to initiate improvements for animal wellbeing. However, this largely depends on how effectively the law bridges the legal chasm between animal welfare and animal suffering, a chasm the authors refer to as the welfare gap. When the law does not adequately address this gap, where regulation subordinates animal interests to human interests, it results in weak animal protection that does little more than regulate to a standard that avoids a life not worth living. The authors analyse a series of cases involving the RSPCA and Brighton, in which Brighton was charged with serious animal cruelty pursuant to s 530 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He stabbed a dog with a pitchfork; after failing to kill the dog, he suspended it from a tree branch by a leash attached to its collar and struck the dog several times on the head with a mallet, finally killing him. Brighton was found guilty in the NSW Local Court and appealed to the NSW Supreme Court, where Rothman J allowed the appeal, holding that Brighton had exterminated a pest animal. This led to protracted litigation, including to the NSW Court of Appeal, a second hearing in the Local Court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court. In August 2020, Sophie Riley published a case note and commentary on the litigation up to the Rothman J appeal. This paper evaluates the litigation that followed, identifying how regulatory failures have entrenched the welfare gap. Regulatory failures include inadequate and aged legislative protections for a confined subset of animals. In NSW, animal sentience is not enshrined in legislation; the law limits the types of animals protected by anti-cruelty law; fundamental statutory language remains undefined, for example terms such as “pest animal” and “exterminate”; and challenges abound for adducing sufficient evidence to prove subjective criminal intent. These deficiencies pose significant challenges for practitioners and judicial officers, particularly when complex statutory interpretation is required in the busy and fast-paced summary jurisdiction. This paper concludes that legislators should consider modernising the law, removing ambiguity, and settling minimum standards for a good life for animals, taking into account the welfare aspects described in Mellor’s Five Domains model. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-bf16f6ba16ab48d4bc9809180a63c970 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2076-2615 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Animals |
| spelling | doaj-art-bf16f6ba16ab48d4bc9809180a63c9702024-11-26T17:46:17ZengMDPI AGAnimals2076-26152024-11-011422334510.3390/ani14223345<i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years OnKathryn Jurd0Sophie Riley1RSPCA NSW, Yagoona, NSW 2199, AustraliaFaculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW 2007, AustraliaAnimal law has the potential to initiate improvements for animal wellbeing. However, this largely depends on how effectively the law bridges the legal chasm between animal welfare and animal suffering, a chasm the authors refer to as the welfare gap. When the law does not adequately address this gap, where regulation subordinates animal interests to human interests, it results in weak animal protection that does little more than regulate to a standard that avoids a life not worth living. The authors analyse a series of cases involving the RSPCA and Brighton, in which Brighton was charged with serious animal cruelty pursuant to s 530 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He stabbed a dog with a pitchfork; after failing to kill the dog, he suspended it from a tree branch by a leash attached to its collar and struck the dog several times on the head with a mallet, finally killing him. Brighton was found guilty in the NSW Local Court and appealed to the NSW Supreme Court, where Rothman J allowed the appeal, holding that Brighton had exterminated a pest animal. This led to protracted litigation, including to the NSW Court of Appeal, a second hearing in the Local Court and a further appeal to the Supreme Court. In August 2020, Sophie Riley published a case note and commentary on the litigation up to the Rothman J appeal. This paper evaluates the litigation that followed, identifying how regulatory failures have entrenched the welfare gap. Regulatory failures include inadequate and aged legislative protections for a confined subset of animals. In NSW, animal sentience is not enshrined in legislation; the law limits the types of animals protected by anti-cruelty law; fundamental statutory language remains undefined, for example terms such as “pest animal” and “exterminate”; and challenges abound for adducing sufficient evidence to prove subjective criminal intent. These deficiencies pose significant challenges for practitioners and judicial officers, particularly when complex statutory interpretation is required in the busy and fast-paced summary jurisdiction. This paper concludes that legislators should consider modernising the law, removing ambiguity, and settling minimum standards for a good life for animals, taking into account the welfare aspects described in Mellor’s Five Domains model.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/22/3345animal lawserious animal crueltycriminal intentionstatutory interpretationanimal cruelty prosecutionanimal cruelty litigation |
| spellingShingle | Kathryn Jurd Sophie Riley <i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On Animals animal law serious animal cruelty criminal intention statutory interpretation animal cruelty prosecution animal cruelty litigation |
| title | <i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On |
| title_full | <i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On |
| title_fullStr | <i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On |
| title_full_unstemmed | <i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On |
| title_short | <i>Brighton v RSPCA NSW</i>: Appeals and Lessons Four Years On |
| title_sort | i brighton v rspca nsw i appeals and lessons four years on |
| topic | animal law serious animal cruelty criminal intention statutory interpretation animal cruelty prosecution animal cruelty litigation |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/14/22/3345 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT kathrynjurd ibrightonvrspcanswiappealsandlessonsfouryearson AT sophieriley ibrightonvrspcanswiappealsandlessonsfouryearson |