ANIMAL
DEFENDERS
OFFICE
.png)
Court of Appeal hearing - decision reserved
The NSW Court of Appeal reserves its decision in our public interest case heard on 9 July 2021
In a gruelling hearing that went for almost 3 hours, our case as to the applicability of the defence of necessity to situations where animals need protection was put to the NSW Court of Appeal. The NSW Police opposed our case and maintained that necessity does not extend to animals. The matter was heard by Justices Basten, Meagher, and
Emmett. The Court has reserved its decision which means the judges have adjourned to think about their decision and will hand it down at a later date. Profound thanks to our barrister Peter Singleton for appearing in this matter. Not only our client, but also animals and their defenders had a powerful advocate in Court today.
Court of Appeal NSW sets hearing date
President of NSW Court of Appeal lists concurrent hearing on 9 July
On 19 April 2021 the President of the Court of Appeal listed our leave to appeal and the appeal itself to be heard concurrently. The prosecution had sought to have the hearings heard separately but the President disagreed and instead set the concurrent hearing for Friday 9 July 2021. We are proud to represent rescuer Isy Veira in her quest to improve the law with respect to animals.
ADO Lawyers file appeal summons in Lakesland Hen Rescuer case
Test case on the defence of necessity proceeds to Court of Appeal
On 8 March 2021 ADO lawyers filed a summons seeking leave to appeal regarding the Supreme Court’s decision last year against the individuals who attempted to rescue sick and dying farmed hens abandoned by authorities.
Lakesland Hen Rescuers confirm intention to appeal to Court of Appeal
Notice of Intention to Appeal filed in NSW Court of Appeal - 5 Jan 2021
Today our lawyers filed a Notice of Intention to Appeal regarding the Supreme Court’s decision last month against the individuals who had attempted to rescue sick and dying farmed hens abandoned by authorities. We are proud to continue to represent the rescuers in their quest to improve the law with respect to animals. The application for leave to appeal is due early March.
Lakesland Hen Rescuers appeal dismissed
Lakesland Hen Rescuers Case – Decision of NSW Supreme Court - 9 Dec 2020
We are extremely disappointed to report that the test case to establish whether our law would allow a minor offence (eg trespass) to be committed if it is necessary to avoid a much greater harm to animals has been dismissed by a single judge in the Supreme Court.
Justice Adamson agreed with the prosecutor who argued there was no evidence to show that the evil inflicted on the hens was
‘irreparable’ or that the appellants were ‘bound to protect’ the chickens [at 26]. Our counsel, Peter Singleton, had argued that the defence of necessity could justify criminal conduct where the purpose of the criminal act was to protect property or a stranger who had no pre-existing relationship with the accused. And if it was available to protect property, the defence must extend to protecting animals such as these hens.
However, Justice Adamson agreed with the prosecutor largely due to previous cases decided in higher courts and which therefore she held were binding on her, even though none of the cases related to a claim for the defence of necessity for the protection of a stranger or property [at 46].
Justice Adamson also held that it must be shown that the accused person had no alternative to doing what he or she did to avoid the harm – ie that the criminal act was proportionate to the harm being inflicted. She agreed with the Local Court’s view that an alternative to the appellants’ rescue attempts was available, being the RSPCA [ADO Note: the RSPCA officers had concluded their inspection at the time of the rescue], and therefore their conduct was neither necessary nor proportionate [at 60].
Justice Adamson concluded by agreeing with the Magistrate in the Local Court that the defence of necessity ‘was plainly not available in the circumstances of the present case since, among other reasons, the purpose element was excluded given the nature of the harm and the plaintiffs’ lack of connection with the chickens’ [at 63].
The appellants are considering an appeal.
We extend infinite thanks to our learned counsel for his supreme generosity of time and expertise. We also thank the appellants for their courage and compassion.
Finally to the Lakesland Hens – you will not be forgotten.
For more on the Lakesland Hens, see NSW Hen Rescue: https://henrescue.org/
The Supreme Court decision is available here: https://tinyurl.com/y9jhcsu5
Lakesland Hen Rescuers head to Supreme Court
Lakesland Hen Rescuers Case – Appeal in NSW Supreme Court - 7 Dec 2020
Today ADO lawyers are heading to the Supreme Court of NSW to appeal an important matter of law about the criminal law defence of ‘necessity’ and whether it can be used to prevent harm to animals. Last year a NSW Local Court said the law should NOT allow private land to be entered in order to help a dying hen, and heavily penalised 6 compassionate citizens who for doing so. The defence of ‘necessity’ is available when a small offence is committed in order to stop a much greater harm. Our law has recognised it to help persons in distress.
Can it be used for ANIMALS whom the law regards as property? Can animals be regarded as LEGAL PERSONS for the purposes of the defence of necessity? We are representing these brave citizens to bring these important animal law issues before the NSW Supreme Court. The matter is listed to be heard this morning by video link.
The Trial
25-29 March 2019, Days 1-5, Hearing
17-19 July 2019, Days 6-8, Hearing
20 September 2019, Day 9, Submissions
13 November 2019, Day 10, Verdict
The trial of the Lakesland Hen Rescuers
VERDICT! Lakesland Hen Rescuers Case – 13 Nov 2019, Day 10
Today in Liverpool Court the Magistrate found the Lakesland Hen Rescuers who had defended the charges against them guilty of aggravated trespass but not guilty of stealing (chickens). The defendants had argued their actions were necessary to avoid the unconscionable pain and suffering endured by the approximately 4,000 hens in that shed on that day in June last year, when authorities refused to take immediate action or provide veterinary care to assist the suffering and dying hens. The Court rejected that argument. In sentencing the Court did not record a conviction for those who had pleaded guilty early in the proceedings, instead handing them a 12-month good behaviour bond. Those who defended the charges were given a $1,500 fine, including on the grounds that their attempted rescue was vigilantism.
In all it is a terrible indictment of our animal protection system that those persons who risked life and limb to render immediate assistance to suffering animals should be charged with criminal offences including aggravated trespass and stealing. We need a properly funded enforcement body that is independent of both government and industry to ensure all sentient animals, including the millions of egg-layer hens in sheds and cages around this State, are properly protected by the law. The ADO is proud to have represented 8 of these brave persons throughout this case led by our extremely learned Counsel Peter Singleton, and we commend all the defendants for their compassion and concern for the wellbeing of all animals.