SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Croatto v Banks |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 398 |
Hearing Date(s): | 16 October 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 18 December 2015 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | The appeal is dismissed. The appellant is to pay the reasonably incurred costs of the respondent in relation to the appeal. |
Catchwords: | APPEAL – Crown Appeal Against Sentence – manifest inadequacy – appeal dismissed. CRIMINAL LAW – Animals – failure to take reasonable steps to alleviate any pain suffered by an animal – neglecting an animal in a way that caused it pain. |
Legislation Cited: | Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) ss 8(2)(b), 8(2)(d) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7 Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 219B |
Cases Cited: | Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321 Ganke v Deputy Fedreal Commissioner of Taxation (1975) 75 ATC 4097 |
Parties: | Catherine Croatto (Appellant) Annette Banks (Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr J Hiscox (Appellant) Mr J Lawton (Respondent) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant) Rachel Bird & Co (Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | SCA 58 of 2015 |
Decision under appeal: | Court: ACT Magistrates Court Before: Magistrate Dingwall Date of Decision: 1 July 2015 Case Title: Banks v Croatto Court File Number(s): CC15/40502; CC15/40503; CC15/40504 |
BURNS J:
These proceedings are a prosecution appeal from the decision of a magistrate. On 1 July this year, the respondent was convicted and sentenced with respect to three charges under the Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) (the Act):
(a)failure to take reasonable steps (including, if appropriate, seeking veterinary treatment) to alleviate any pain suffered by an animal, being a shih tzu dog named Lucky, under s 8 (2) (b) of the Act (CC2015/40502). For this offence, a conviction was recorded and the respondent was fined $250.00;
(b)neglecting an animal, being the dog Lucky, in a way that caused it pain under s 8 (2) (d) of the Act (CC2015/40503). For this offence, a conviction was recorded and no further penalty was imposed on the respondent; and
(c)failure to take reasonable steps (including, if appropriate, seeking veterinary treatment) to alleviate any pain suffered by an animal, being a terrier cross dog named Rocky, under s 8 (2) (b) of the Act (CC2015/40504). For this offence, a conviction was recorded and the respondent was fined $100.00.
The appellant appeals on the sole ground that the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were manifestly inadequate.
Background
On 26 November 2014, the respondent requested that her son-in-law take her dog, Lucky, to the Tuggeranong Veterinary Hospital. Lucky presented as being skinny with the following ailments:
(a)a matted coat;
(b)multiple ulcerated masses around the anus, which were fly blown;
(c)the skin on the left perineal area between the scrotum and the body had been eaten…
Continue reading Croatto v Banks
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Croatto v Banks [2015] ACTSC 398
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 398
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the appeal should be dismissed. The court considered whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's offending and whether it was necessary to ensure the protection of the community and to deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar offending. The court also considered the appellant's background and the circumstances of the offending.
The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate. The court noted that the appellant had a previous conviction for animal cruelty and that the offending in the present case was of a serious nature. The court considered that the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the appellant's offending and the need to protect the community and deter the appellant and others from engaging in similar offending. The court also noted that the appellant had shown remorse and had taken steps to address his offending. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
The court ordered that the appellant pay the reasonably incurred costs of the respondent in relation to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant is to pay the reasonably incurred costs of the respondent in relation to the appeal.
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.