In an encouraging move, the Victorian Government is taking action to help victims of domestic violence make the decision to leave their abusive partners by providing $100,000 in funding over four years to domestic violence support organisation Safe Steps to provide shelter to victims’ pets.

A 2012 report provided to the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges in New Zealand found cruelty to pets was most commonly reported as a form of punishment, with abusive partners often threatening or inflicting harm to pets as a form means of maintaining control in the relationship or preventing their partners from leaving.

Fears about what may happen to pets that are left behind with abusive partners often cause victims to stay in abusive relationships longer.  However, domestic violence support services have limited capacity to house or care for the pets of women fleeing abusive relationships.  Safe Steps will work with animal welfare agencies like the RSPCA to implement the program.

Read more about this from the Guardian and ABC.

In a disappointing, though perhaps unsurprising move, the three Coalition members of the six-member Senate Committee tasked with reviewing WA Liberal Senator Chris Back’s ag-gag bill, paradoxically named the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015, have tabled a report recommending the passage of the bill into legislation with one minor amendment.  The Greens Committee member and two ALP members have authored separate dissenting reports.

All reports were tabled in Parliament out of session on 12 June 2015.

The Senate Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation is chaired by Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan (NSW), who appears to have cast the deciding vote.  The Committee also includes Liberal Senator Sean Edwards (SA), Nationals Senator John Williams (NSW), ALP Senators Glenn Sterle (WA; Deputy Chair) and Joe Bullock (WA), and Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon (NSW).  Also participating in the review of the bill were it’s proponent, Liberal Senator Chris Back (WA), and Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm (NSW) and independent Senator Nick Xenophon (SA).

Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon authored a comprehensive dissenting report opposing the bill on several grounds, and the ALP members put forward a one-page dissenting report calling for an “open and transparent consultative process” to fully address the issues raised in submissions received by the Committee before the bill be considered by Parliament.

The Committee report, therefore, was exclusively authored by the Liberal and National parties, and endorses the bill for enactment subject to the recommendation that the offence of failing to report animal cruelty to authorities within one business day be amended to a requirement to report “as soon as practicable”.  The more significant criminal offences contained in the bill, some of which carry maximum penalties of life imprisonment, are endorsed by the Coalition parties without amendment.  Those provisions impose significant criminal liability on people who trespass on animal enterprise premises, damage animal enterprise property or property “connected with” an animal enterprise, or cause fear to animal enterprise operators, employees or persons “connected with” an animal enterprise (including family members and contractors), with the purpose of “interfering with” the animal enterprise.  The bill also includes aggravating circumstances that result in harsher penalties, including where the alleged interference results in economic damage, which includes lost profits, to the animal enterprise of $10,000 or more.

The Coalition report also endorses the reversal of the onus of proof under the offence of failing to report instances of animal cruelty, which requires defendants, rather than prosecutors, to prove they reported animal cruelty within the required timeframe, and the absolute liability provisions which mean that a criminal intention need not be proved and remove the defence of mistake of fact.

The Greens’ dissenting report rejects the bill in its entirety on that basis that it “seeks to deter and punish those who would expose to the public visual evidence of animal cruelty in commercial animal industries. It would do this by effectively criminalising investigators while turning a blind eye to the perpetrators of that cruelty.”  Correctly, the Greens report notes that the bill does not require eye-witnesses to animal cruelty, such as animal enterprise employees, to report animal cruelty, but only those who make a “visual recording” of instances of animal cruelty, and that the bill does not contain a single provision dealing with the perpetrators of any animal cruelty that is reported.  The Greens’ report also includes a number of recommendations to strengthen the national animal welfare regulatory framework, including the establishment of an Independent Office for Animal Welfare.

Under the Senate Committee review process, a Government response to the Committee reports is due by 12 September 2015.

A copy of the Committee’s report (which includes the Greens’ dissenting report) and Labor’s separate dissenting report can be found here.

The first US District Court decision on the constitutionality of state-enacted ‘ag-gag’ laws has been handed down, and its a big victory for animal rights and animal welfare.

US District Court Judge Winmill handed down a decision on Monday ruling that Idaho’s ag-gag law (formally known as Idaho Code § 18-7042) was unconstitutional because it infringed First Amendment (free speech) rights.  The law was drafted and sponsored by the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, a trade industry organisation that represents every dairy farmer and producer in the state, in response to undercover video footage of employees of Bettencourt Dairies’ Dry Creek Dairy abusing dairy cows that was secretly obtained and published (after reporting the incident to the relevant authority) by Mercy for Animals – an animal welfare organisation.

The legal challenge against the law was prosecuted by The Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), with the support of other animal rights agencies, who argued that the law had both the purpose and effect of stifling public debate by criminalising undercover and investigative journalism into instances of animal abuse, and whistle-blowing by employees of animal-agriculture operations.  ALDF argued that those sanctions meant the law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Typical of ag-gag legislation, the law imposed disproportionate criminal sanctions on those carrying out secret investigations of commercial animal agriculture operations, which are superficially promoted by legislators as pro-animal welfare requirements or for the purpose of protecting private property.  However, Winmill J clarified that the purpose of the Idaho “ag-gag” law was to “limit and punish those who speak out on topics relating to the agricultural industry, striking at the heart of important First Amendment values”.  An equally important statement by Winmill J is that “an agricultural facility’s operations that affect food and worker safety are not exclusively a private matter.  Food and worker safety are matters of public concern.”

Winmill J stated that “[t]he effect of the statute will be to suppress speech by undercover investigators and whistleblowers concerning topics of great public importance: the safety of the public food supply, the safety of agricultural workers, the treatment and health of farm animals, and the impact of business activities on the environment”, noting that undercover journalism is a popular form of politically salient speech.  Ultimately, Winmill J found that “the facts show that the State’s purpose in enacting the statute was to protect industrial animal agriculture by silencing its critics” and the law unreasonably burdened speech critical of the animal-agriculture industry.

Although Winmill J’s decision may be appealed, it sends a strong signal about the illegitimacy of ag-gag legislation.

Idaho is one of eight US states with ag-gag laws.

See the Food Safety News site for more details and a link to Winmill J’s 28 page decision.

See this Sydney Morning Herald article for a summary.

LFA turns 10 years old in 2015. To celebrate, we’re inviting all our members, their guests and general public to a special birthday event on 30 July 2015, featuring keynote speaker Mark Dreyfus QC. Details below. To attend, please RSVP by 24 July.

On 10 June 2015 the High Court handed down its decision in Isbester v Knox City Council – the appeal by Ms Tania Isbester against the decision of Knox City Council to destroy her Staffordshire Terrier, Izzy.  The majority of Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Nettle JJ, with Gageler J concurring, found that the Council’s decision was affected by a reasonable apprehension of bias because of the involvement in the decision-making process of the council officer responsible for the investigation and prosecution of related offences against Ms Isbester.

The High Court found that the question to be answered was whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend a lack of impartiality with respect to the Council’s decision because of the involvement of the investigating officer in the decision-making process.  It was not necessary to establish that the Council’s decision was actually affected by bias, or that the investigating officer improperly interfered with the decision-making process.

The Court’s inquiry focused on whether the investigating officer had an interest in the outcome of the Council’s decision because of their broader involvement in the matter, and whether, from the perspective of an objective observer aware of that broader involvement, the investigating officer’s involvement lead to an apprehension that the Council had deviated from the course of deciding the case on its merits.

The majority held that the investigating officer’s involvement in the prosecution of the charges against Ms Isbester created an interest in the final outcome of the matter, and that the a prosecutor may reasonably have an interest “in the vindication of their opinion that an offence has occurred or that a particular penalty should be imposed, or in obtaining an outcome consonant with the prosecutor’s view of guilt or punishment.”  The investigating officer’s inclusion in the panel that decided to destroy Izzy, regardless of her actual influence on that decision, created the apprehension that the investigating officer’s interest in the matter prevented a fair, balanced and impartial consideration of the matter according to the law and the merits, as required under the common law principles of natural justice.

The Council’s decision to destroy Izzy, who has been in the Council’s custody since June 2013, was quashed and a costs order was made against the Council.

This case provides a useful clarification of the natural justice requirements applicable to local council decisions under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic), and generally, and paints a confounding illustration of the lengths to which some councils will go to defend their decisions to destroy animals.

On 13 April 2015 the International Whaling Commission (IWC) released a report finding that Japan’s revised scientific whaling program provided no justification for the slaughter of whales for its purported scientific objectives. The IWC report concluded that Japan had not demonstrated that the culling of up to 333 minke whales a year for 12 years was necessary to meet the research objectives of obtaining more precise information on minkes, should the global moratorium on commercial whaling ever be lifted, and investigating the Antarctic marine ecosystem.

Japan was forced to suspend its scientific whaling program following the landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling in 2014 that Japan was conducting commercial whaling under the guise of a scientific program in contravention of the 1987 IWC moratorium on commercial whaling.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe commented after the ICJ decision that Japan was committed to pursuing Antarctic whaling, and Japan’s commissioner to the IWC, Joji Morishita, has indicated that Japan will continue to pursue a scientific whaling program despite the IWC report.

See more on this topic here (The Guardian) and here (Stuff.co.nz).

On 14 April 2015 the full bench of the High Court heard an appeal challenging Knox City Council’s decision to destroy Izzy, a four year old Staffordshire Terrier. Izzy had been detained by the Council following attacks on other dogs in August 2012, May and June 2013 after Izzy and two other dogs had escaped from their owner’s yard. The High Court transcript can be found here.

The Council decided to destroy Izzy in October 2013, after representing to Izzy’s owner, Ms Tania Isbester, that it would not do so. Ms Isbester challenged the Council’s decision through the Victorian courts, claiming the Council’s decision makers were affected by apprehended bias, bad faith, did not consider whether Izzy should have instead been declared a “dangerous dog” and did not afford Ms Isbester procedural fairness, among other grounds.

The Victorian Court of Appeal upheld the Council’s decision in September 2014. Ms Isbester was granted leave to appeal that decision to the High Court on the basis the Council’s decision was affected by a conflict of interest. This is the first case regarding a local council’s decision to destroy an animal to reach the High Court and, although based on administrative law grounds, the case is likely to provide useful guidance on the procedural requirements local councils must follow when investigating and deciding penalties regarding dogs.

The crux of Ms Isbester’s argument is that Izzy did not receive a fair hearing by the Council when it was considering what action to take in response to Izzy’s involvement in the three attacks on other dogs, which involved two other Staffordshire Terriers owned by Ms Isbester, one of which had already been destroyed by the Council. The Council officer that had investigated those dog attacks and charged Ms Isbester was a member of the panel convened by the Council to hear the charges and decide the penalty.

Ms Isbester has argued before the Victorian Courts and the High Court that the Council’s investigator played an influential role in Magistrate’s Court proceedings brought against Ms Isbester as Izzy’s owner, and the Council’s decision to destroy Izzy. Ms Isbester’s legal representatives submitted that the participation of that investigating officer in the legal processes involving Ms Isbester and Izzy amounted to them acting as both accuser and judge, creating an apprehension of bias and a conflict of interest that affected the Council’s decision-making process.

Izzy has been detained by the Council since June 2013.

More on this topic can be found here.

On 17 February 2015, the day following the Four Corners program exposing the live-baiting scandal that rocked the national greyhound racing industry, the Victorian Racing Integrity Commissioner announced an inquiry into the live baiting allegations, and the Victorian Government announced a broader investigation into the greyhound racing industry by its Chief Veterinary Officer.  On 11 March, the Racing Integrity Commissioner delivered an interim report to Government that found, among other things, that it would be naive to assume that live baiting practices were not being carried out at training facilities in Victoria other than the Tooradin Trial track discussed in the Four Corners program, and that, on the balance of probabilities, Greyhound Racing Victoria could not have been expected to know about live baiting practices given their purportedly limited investigation powers.

The Racing Integrity Commissioner proposes to deliver his final report on 30 April 2015.

Following Victoria’s lead, the NSW Government announced on 4 March 2015 the establishment of a Special Commission of Inquiry into the State’s greyhound racing industry to investigate animal welfare and integrity issues.  This announcement came after the entire board of Greyhound Racing NSW was sacked by the Minister for Racing.

Queensland has now followed suit, announcing on 10 April 2015 the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into the Queensland greyhound racing industry, to be headed by Barrister Alan MacSporran.   Its terms of reference can be found here, and include “the regulatory arrangements for the protection of animal welfare of racing dogs and other animals, including the extent of live-baiting practices in Queensland.”

This announcement follows the discovery of the mass-killing of 55 greyhounds in bushland near Bundaberg, Queensland, for which two people have been charged with more arrests possible.  So far, however, Queensland greyhound racing officials have remained in office, with Racing Queensland’s general manager of stewards and integrity operations returning to work on 21 April 2015 after being stood down temporarily.

Given evidence of past and present practices across the national greyhound racing industry, Lawyers for Animals considers this industry is unlikely to meet the public’s expectations of decent and ethical treatment of animals. Lawyers for Animals calls for laws prohibiting animal cruelty to be properly enforced against greyhound trainers and racing venue operators, and for greyhound racing to be phased-out throughout Australia.

Senator Chris Back’s Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015, which seeks to criminalise private investigations into animal abuse, also known as an ag-gag law, was referred to the Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport on 12 February 2015.

Submissions closed on 12 March 2015, and the Standing Committee is scheduled to hand down its report on 13 May 2015.

Animals Australia and Animal Liberation Victoria are both gathering signatures for petitions opposing the proposed bill.

A discussion paper on ag-gag laws in Australia prepared by the RSPCA can be found here.

Also see LFA’s earlier post on this topic.