Losing the chicken for the flock: Reforming animal welfare prosecutions in Australia
March and April of this year saw a spate of stories about animal cruelty reported across Australian news media. In today’s article, Serrin Rutledge-Prior (@serrinrp) from the Crawford School of Public Policy reviews prosecutions brought under animal welfare legislation across Australia, arguing that the treatment of non-human animals under Australian law is both inconsistent and insufficient in terms of delivering justice to victims of neglect and abuse.
For the past two weeks, my laptop screen has been heartbreakingly full of descriptions and images of neglect and abuse. The victims are some of the most vulnerable members of our community: the dogs, cats, and other animals with whom many of us live and share our lives.
As part of my research into the protections afforded animals within the legal system, I have assembled a database of prosecutions brought under animal welfare legislation, as listed by state and territory RSPCA branches on their respective websites (the ‘prosecutions database’).
Animal welfare regulation in Australia
Except in the Northern Territory, where police alone have the relevant prosecutory powers, RSPCAs around Australia are legally empowered to prosecute alleged breaches of animal welfare legislation. Magistrates’ decisions in relation to animal welfare cases are rarely published online, making my trawl through RSPCA news feeds and article archives for information on prosecutions one of the few ways of getting information on the outcomes of cases.
RSPCA inspectors and prosecutors work extremely hard with the limited resources they have, and should be applauded for their efforts in seeking justice for some of the most despicable crimes committed in our society. Yet the system they are working within is crying out for reform – if not entirely ‘broken’.
Take a second to reflect on how utterly bizarre it is to give a privately funded charity the responsibility of investigating and prosecuting criminal matters. While celebrating the excellent work that the following organisations do, we wouldn’t want Variety, Barnardos, or the Smith Family given responsibility for prosecuting cases of child abuse or neglect. Why should we make this regulatory exception in the case of crimes committed against animals? Animal abuse is a crime, and should be addressed in the way that all crimes are: investigated by the police and brought to court by state prosecutors.
What does the prosecutions database reveal?
Beyond the regulatory framework surrounding animal welfare, we should also be concerned with the systemic treatment of animals within the Australian legal system. The prosecutions database sheds light on this.
The database is admittedly incomplete – it is difficult to know how many cases have not been reported by RSPCA organisations on their websites, and of those that are, important details about sentencing are often not included. Nevertheless, the 450-odd cases that have been reported are revealing. The following are some of the issues that emerge most strongly from the data:
There are inconsistencies in the penalties applied for the same crimes across different jurisdictions
·There are inconsistencies in the penalties applied within the same jurisdiction
Penalties across all jurisdictions – even for cases in which the offence results in the death of one or more animals – are incredibly low
Much more could be said about these concerns. However, the issue I’d like to highlight here speaks to how the legal system is often blind to the nature of animals as individuals.
One victim =/= one charge
In numerous cases – as reported by the RSPCA – there is evidence of animals being clumped together in groups when alleged offences are being prosecuted.
In South Australia in 2018, for example, a man was charged with one count of ill treatment in relation to 35 sheep. The sheep were found by RSPCA inspectors on the accused’s property, emaciated. Ten were in such a poor condition that they were euthanised on medical grounds.
In New South Wales in 2019, a man was prosecuted with seven counts of failing to provide veterinary treatment for the twelve greyhounds in his care. Nine of these dogs were in such a bad state that RSPCA inspectors seized them for immediate veterinary care, leaving the owner with instructions to seek treatment for the other three dogs in relation to “dental disease, pressure sores, alopecia and skin problems”.
In Queensland in 2019, a woman pleaded guilty to one charge of failure to provide appropriate living conditions and two charges of failure to provide appropriate veterinary treatment for injury. The owner of a dog breeding operation, the offender was responsible for 110 dogs and puppies, many of whom were kept in small, dirty cages without access to sufficient food or water.
In Victoria in 2020, an individual was charged with two counts of overcrowding an animal in such a way that is likely to cause unreasonable pain or suffering. The animals involved numbered 59 guinea pigs and 69 rabbits.
Why does this matter?
What these cases suggest is that our legal system is oriented more towards the crimes being committed than the impacts of these crimes on individual (animal) victims. Of course, punishing offenders and deterring others from committing crime are important rationales that drive the criminal justice system. However, an equally important goal is that of attaining justice for the individual victims who have suffered from crimes. The latter goal, unfortunately, seems to be getting lost in animal welfare prosecutions.
More broadly, the prosecutions database highlights the inconsistencies present in animal welfare legislation and sentencing in Australia, and – arguably – the lack of seriousness that animal welfare is accorded within Australia’s regulatory spheres.
Recommendations
Charges brought under animal welfare legislation must correspond to the individual victims who have suffered (or even died) as a result of the alleged crimes
Animal welfare laws should be strengthened, and made consistent across jurisdictions of Australia
Animal welfare offences should be investigated and prosecuted by the police and state prosecutors, respectively
We must remove animal welfare from the agricultural ministerial portfolio and introduce a ministry of animal welfare to oversee animal welfare policy.
Serrin Rutledge-Prior is a Research Fellow with the Crawford School of Public Policy and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG). She also serves as a member of the Australian Capital Territory's Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.
Moderator: Laura Davy (@LauraKDavy)