ANDERSON -v- MOORE [2007] WASC 135

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASC 135
Case No:	SJA:1118/2006	Heard:	21 MAY 2007
Coram:	JENKINS J	Delivered:	22/06/07
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	WILLIAM BROWN ANDERSON ROBIN EDWARD MOORE
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeal against convictions for animal cruelty Alleged errors by the Magistrate in the application of relevant statutory provisions
Legislation:	Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), s 19(1), s 19(3)(h), s 21
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

CITATION : ANDERSON -v- MOORE [2007] WASC 135 CORAM : JENKINS J HEARD : 21 MAY 2007 DELIVERED : 22 JUNE 2007 FILE NO/S : SJA 1118 of 2006 BETWEEN : WILLIAM BROWN ANDERSON

Appellant

AND

ROBIN EDWARD MOORE

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MAGISTRATE K T FISHER

File No : MJ 405 of 2004, MJ 406 of 2004, MJ 407 of 2004, MJ 408 of 2004, MJ 409 of 2004, MJ 410 of 2004

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against convictions for animal cruelty - Alleged errors by the Magistrate in the application of relevant statutory provisions

Legislation:

Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA), s 19(1), s 19(3)(h), s 21

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr T Lethbridge

Respondent : Mr J C W Skinner

Solicitors:

Appellant : Kott Gunning

Respondent : Jackson McDonald

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

(Page 3)

JENKINS J

The decision under appeal

1 The appellant appeals from his convictions on prosecutions notices numbered MJ 405/04 – 410/04. Each of the six charges alleged that between 28 April 2004 and 1 July 2004 the appellant, being a person in charge of an animal, namely a sheep, was cruel to the animal as it suffered harm which could have been alleviated by the taking of reasonable steps contrary to the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) ("the Act"), s 19(3)(h).

2 On 17 November 2006 a Magistrate convicted the appellant of each offence, imposed a global fine of $25,000 and ordered him to pay costs of $3,929. There was a further order made prohibiting the appellant from being in charge of sheep for 10 years.

3 On appeal, the appellant contends that the Magistrate erred in finding the charges proven. I dismiss the appeal.

Grounds of appeal

4 There are three grounds of appeal which state:

"1. His Honour Magistrate Fisher made an error of law in that he used the wrong test in determining whether the charges had been proved – specifically, he relied on the Defendant's 'uncaring attitude' towards the relevant animals, notwithstanding that this is not an element of the offence, and is not sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of the offence.

2. His Honour Magistrate Fisher made an error of fact and law in that he failed to consider whether the Defendant had taken 'reasonable steps' to alleviate harm to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Moore

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Moore [2007] WASC 135
Case: [2007] WASC 135
Decision Date: 22 JUNE 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the defendant, Anderson, against his convictions for animal cruelty. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent, Moore, had accused Anderson of engaging in animal cruelty by beating and mistreating a dog, which led to the animal's death. The Magistrate found Anderson guilty and sentenced him to a fine and a period of imprisonment. Anderson appealed the conviction and sentence on the basis of alleged errors by the Magistrate in the application of relevant statutory provisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Magistrate had correctly applied the statutory provisions related to animal cruelty when convicting Anderson. The court was required to determine whether the Magistrate had erred in his interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions. The appeal hinged on whether the Magistrate had misapplied the law, leading to an incorrect finding of guilt.

The court found that the Magistrate had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had not erred in his interpretation or application of the law. The evidence presented was sufficient to support the Magistrate's findings, and there were no errors in the application of the law that warranted overturning the conviction. The court held that the appeal was without merit, and dismissed it. The original conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.