Joyce v Visser - [2001] TASSC 116

[2001] TASSC 116

CITATION: Joyce v Visser [2001] TASSC 116

PARTIES:  JOYCE, Stephann Albert
  v
  VISSER, Claas

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 16/2001
DELIVERED ON:  2 October 2001
DELIVERED AT:  Launceston
HEARING DATE/S:  26 September 2001
JUDGMENT OF:  Crawford J

CATCHWORDS:

Animals - Various statutory provisions - Prevention of cruelty to animals - Offences - Causing unnecessary pain and cruelly ill-treating - Generally - Failing to feed and water dogs - Sufficiency of evidence - Sentence - Whether three months' imprisonment manifestly excessive.
Animal Welfare Act 1973 (Tas), ss7, 8 and 9.
Aust Dig Animals [42]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  J C Kitto
             Respondent:  J P Ransom
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  Zeeman Kable & Page
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment ID Number: [2001] TASSC 116
Number of paragraphs: 28

Serial No 116/2001
File No LCA 16/2001

STEPHANN ALBERT JOYCE v SERGEANT CLAAS VISSER

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CRAWFORD J
2 October 2001

In a court of petty sessions at Launceston, following a defended hearing, all of eight charges against the applicant were found proved. Subsequently he was convicted of them and sentenced to three months' imprisonment.

The charges were under the Animal Welfare Act 1993. Counts 1 and 5 related to an adult female black and white Border Collie cross. Count 1 charged him with omitting between 12 May and 12 July 1999 to do a duty which caused unreasonable and unjustifiable pain and suffering to the animal contrary to the Act, s8(1). Particulars of the charge were that he left the dog chained by the neck and failed to provide it with appropriate and sufficient food, drink and exercise. Count 5 charged him with having the care of the animal between 12 May and 12 July 1999 and using a method of management of it which was reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain and suffering to it, contrary to s7. The same particulars were provided. Counts 2 and 6 related to a male tan and white Jack Russell terrier. The charges and the particulars were the same respectively as counts 1 and 5. Counts 3 and 7 related to a female black and white Border Collie cross puppy. The charges and particulars were the same respectively as counts 1 and 5. Counts 4 and 8 related to a female tan and white puppy. Count 4 charged the applicant with omitting between 12 May and 12 July 1999 to do a duty which resulted in the death of the animal, contrary to the Act, s9. Particulars of the charge were that he left the animal chained by the neck and failed to provide it with appropriate and sufficient food, drink and exercise. The substance of the charge and its particulars in count 8 were the same as counts 5, 6 and 7.

The finding that the complaint was proved is attacked by the first two grounds in the notice to review, which are that the learned magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons and…

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 Joyce v Visser

Details

AGLC: Joyce v Visser [2001] TASSC 116
Case: [2001] TASSC 116
Decision Date: 2 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephann Albert Joyce appeals against his conviction and sentence by a magistrate for various offences under the Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), relating to the neglect and death of four dogs in his care. The respondent is the Director of Public Prosecutions. The appeal is against both conviction and sentence. The appeal against conviction is based on two grounds: that the magistrate failed to give sufficient reasons for finding the complaint proved and that the finding was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The appeal against sentence is based on the ground that the penalty imposed was manifestly excessive. Joyce was represented by counsel, while the Director of Public Prosecutions was represented by a prosecutor. The court finds that the magistrate's reasons were adequate, and the finding of guilt was safe and satisfactory. However, the penalty of three months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive, and the court re-sentences the applicant to one month's imprisonment. The court also orders that the applicant be disqualified from caring for animals for ten years. The court will give the applicant's counsel an opportunity to present a psychiatric report before re-sentencing.

Orders