The cruelty offence - Part 1
Section 1 of the Ordinance spells out the main cruelty offence, which is designed to cover all manner of ways in which a person might be convicted for harming an animal. The offence requires five main elements to lead to a successful prosecution, which are separated out into the five columns below - think of them as the five fingers of a hand;
A person would commit an offence if, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse;
|
|
an animal to -
|
and the person
|
and the killing, injuring, ill-treatment, or suffering
|
Did you get all that? We'll go through it slowly to make it more clear.
An important thing to note is that at least one of the bullet points from each column needs to be present for an offence to be committed.
So a person would be guilty if, say, an act of his; causes; an animal to suffer; and his act was reckless; and the suffering was unnecessary. Or a person would be guilty if, his failure to act; was likely to cause; an animal to be ill-treated; and he ought to have known this and the ill-treatment would be unnecessary. And so on.
Remember also, that over all of this are the two exceptions of lawful authority and reasonable excuse mentioned right at the top of the five main elements - there may be some cases in which the act carried out was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or perhaps was carried out by a person with some form of lawful authority to act in the way he did.
In addition, the owner or occupier of any land commits an offence if he knowingly permits a person to commit any offence falling within the above provisions, on that land - a useful addition.
It seems complicated doesn't it? But the legal drafting has been designed to cover all the possible ways in which animals might suffer at the hands of people, all wrapped up in one section - if an animal suffers and someone should answer for it, this section will catch them.
So you can see that the reach and scope of this offence is very wide indeed. The major new provision for the protection of animals is that an animal no longer needs to actually suffer before action can be taken, which was a big flaw with the previous law. If an animal is likely to suffer unnecessarily, there could be a contravention of this law. Do you remember an instance in which you felt sorry for an animal? See if the circumstances fit the five elements.
An important thing to note is that at least one of the bullet points from each column needs to be present for an offence to be committed.
So a person would be guilty if, say, an act of his; causes; an animal to suffer; and his act was reckless; and the suffering was unnecessary. Or a person would be guilty if, his failure to act; was likely to cause; an animal to be ill-treated; and he ought to have known this and the ill-treatment would be unnecessary. And so on.
Remember also, that over all of this are the two exceptions of lawful authority and reasonable excuse mentioned right at the top of the five main elements - there may be some cases in which the act carried out was reasonable having regard to all the circumstances, or perhaps was carried out by a person with some form of lawful authority to act in the way he did.
In addition, the owner or occupier of any land commits an offence if he knowingly permits a person to commit any offence falling within the above provisions, on that land - a useful addition.
It seems complicated doesn't it? But the legal drafting has been designed to cover all the possible ways in which animals might suffer at the hands of people, all wrapped up in one section - if an animal suffers and someone should answer for it, this section will catch them.
So you can see that the reach and scope of this offence is very wide indeed. The major new provision for the protection of animals is that an animal no longer needs to actually suffer before action can be taken, which was a big flaw with the previous law. If an animal is likely to suffer unnecessarily, there could be a contravention of this law. Do you remember an instance in which you felt sorry for an animal? See if the circumstances fit the five elements.
The cruelty offence - Part 2
There are some important legal provisions that have to be taken into account when considering if an offence has taken place.
Firstly, what is an "animal"? This may seem obvious, but needs to be spelled out for the avoidance of doubt - for example, can you be arrested for being cruel to a spider? For the purposes of the offences we discussed in Part 1, the word "animal" means vertebrates (apart from people - they are protected by other laws) and cephalopods (octopuses, squids, cuttlefishes and nautiluses). So the poor spider (and all his invertebrate cousins) falls outside these offences. Incidentally, why do cephalopods get included, and not other invertebrates? Well research suggests they have large and complex brains, they can learn and they feel pain, so they are regarded as deserving of protection against harm.
Later in the Ordinance, there are provisions for regulating certain activities, like shows and exhibitions, animal shelters, breeders, riding stables and pet shops, and here the word "animal" applies to whatever animal is the subject of the regulation.
Secondly, the offence talks about unnecessary suffering. What does that mean? What would a court hold as "unnecessary"? Could you have "necessary" suffering?
The Ordinance provides that when considering whether or not the killing, injuring, ill-treatment or suffering was "unnecessary" you would have to take into account such things as whether it could have been avoided; whether it was for a legitimate purpose like benefiting the animal or protecting someone; the proportionality or otherwise of the conduct; and whether the conduct was what a reasonably competant and humane person would have done in the same circumstances.
These factors might point to the decision that the act was, unfortunately, "necessary".
Firstly, what is an "animal"? This may seem obvious, but needs to be spelled out for the avoidance of doubt - for example, can you be arrested for being cruel to a spider? For the purposes of the offences we discussed in Part 1, the word "animal" means vertebrates (apart from people - they are protected by other laws) and cephalopods (octopuses, squids, cuttlefishes and nautiluses). So the poor spider (and all his invertebrate cousins) falls outside these offences. Incidentally, why do cephalopods get included, and not other invertebrates? Well research suggests they have large and complex brains, they can learn and they feel pain, so they are regarded as deserving of protection against harm.
Later in the Ordinance, there are provisions for regulating certain activities, like shows and exhibitions, animal shelters, breeders, riding stables and pet shops, and here the word "animal" applies to whatever animal is the subject of the regulation.
Secondly, the offence talks about unnecessary suffering. What does that mean? What would a court hold as "unnecessary"? Could you have "necessary" suffering?
The Ordinance provides that when considering whether or not the killing, injuring, ill-treatment or suffering was "unnecessary" you would have to take into account such things as whether it could have been avoided; whether it was for a legitimate purpose like benefiting the animal or protecting someone; the proportionality or otherwise of the conduct; and whether the conduct was what a reasonably competant and humane person would have done in the same circumstances.
These factors might point to the decision that the act was, unfortunately, "necessary".