Sutcliffe v RSPCA (SA) Inc (No 2) - [2016] SASC 190

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Magistrates Appeals: Civil)
SUTCLIFFE v RSPCA (SA) INC (No 2)
[2016] SASC 190
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Blue
16 December 2016
ANIMALS - VARIOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS - PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS - OFFENCES
MAGISTRATES - APPEAL AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
MAGISTRATES - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - SENTENCE - FINES - IMPOSITION INSTEAD OF OR IN ADDITION TO IMPRISONMENT
MAGISTRATES - ORDERS AND CONVICTIONS - SENTENCE - COMPENSATION ORDERS
Appeal against penalty.
The appellant was convicted by a Magistrate of two counts of ill-treating cats in contravention of section 13(2) of the Animal Welfare Act 1985. The appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed (Sutcliffe v RSPCA (SA) Inc [2016] SASC 125).
The Magistrate imposed a fine of $7,000; ordered that the proceeds of sale of seized cats be paid to the RSPCA; the appellant pay monies for veterinary and boarding costs in respect of cats seized, surrender all animals currently in her care or control and be prohibited from acquiring or having care or control of any animal until further order.
Held (partially allowing the appeal):
1. The Magistrate did not err in the exercise of his discretion to make the surrender order, except that it should be confined to cats (at [18]).
2. The Magistrate did not err in exercising his discretion to make the prohibition order, except that it should be expressed in terms of “care or control” rather than “custody” (at [22]).
3. The Magistrate did not err in making the order for release of the proceeds of sale of the seized cats (at [25]).
4. The Magistrate did not err in making the order in respect of veterinary and boarding costs (at [29]).
5. The fine of $7,000 was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances, including taking into account the forfeiture of the appellant’s cats and the order for compensation (at [36]-[37]). A fine of $3,000 should be imposed.
6. The Magistrate did not err in ordering payment of legal costs (at [40]).
Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) s 3, s 13, s 31A, s 31C, s 32A; Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) s 10, s 18A, s 53; Summary Procedure Act 1921 (SA) s 189, referred to.

SUTCLIFFE v RSPCA (SA) INC (No 2)
[2016] SASC 190
Magistrates Appeal:
BLUE J:

This is an appeal against penalty.
The appellant, Glynne Sutcliffe, was convicted by a Magistrate of two counts of ill-treating cats on 2 September 2011 and between 3 September and 17 October 2011 in contravention of sections 13(2) and (3)(b)(i) of the Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) (the Act).
The circumstances of the offending are set out in my reasons for judgment dismissing Ms Sutcliffe’s conviction appeal.[1]
[1] Sutcliffe v RSPCA (SA) Inc [2016] SASC 125.
On 16 November 2015, the Magistrate imposed a single penalty pursuant to section 18A of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA) (the Sentencing Act). The Magistrate imposed a…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sutcliffe v RSPCA (SA) Inc (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] SASC 190
Decision Date: 16 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Supreme Court of South Australia involves Ms. Sutcliffe, who was convicted by a Magistrate of multiple charges related to the prevention of cruelty to animals under various statutory provisions. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SA) Inc (RSPCA) brought the charges against Ms. Sutcliffe following an incident involving several cats. The primary issues before the court were whether the penalties imposed by the Magistrate were appropriate and whether the compensation orders were correctly made. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, which had the jurisdiction to review the Magistrate's decisions.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriateness of the penalties imposed on Ms. Sutcliffe, specifically whether the fines were excessive, and whether the compensation orders were justified and correctly calculated. The court also needed to consider whether the orders for the payment of legal costs and court costs were appropriate. The RSPCA argued that the penalties were insufficient given the severity of the animal cruelty, while Ms. Sutcliffe contended that the penalties were harsh and disproportionate.

In allowing the appeal and setting aside the orders made by the Magistrate, the Supreme Court found that the original penalty was inappropriate. The court imposed a fine of $3,000 and directed that the proceeds from the sale of the seized cats be paid to the RSPCA. Additionally, the court ordered Ms. Sutcliffe to pay specific amounts for veterinary and boarding costs incurred by the RSPCA, as well as legal costs to the RSPCA. The court also mandated that Ms. Sutcliffe surrender all cats in her custody and control and prohibited her from acquiring or having custody of any animal until further order. Furthermore, the court ordered Ms. Sutcliffe to pay court costs and mandatory Victims of Crime levies.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court determined that the original penalty was excessive and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence. The court substituted the original orders with a fine and specific compensation orders, while also imposing restrictions on Ms. Sutcliffe's ability to acquire or have custody of animals in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

It was appropriate for the Magistrate to order Ms Sutcliffe to pay the amount sought for legal costs being $9,500.Conclusion I allow the appeal against penalty and set aside the orders made by the Magistrate. In lieu thereof, I make the following orders in respect of both counts pursuant to section 18A of the Sentencing Act:1a fine of $3,000 is imposed;2the proceeds of sale of seized cats of $3,637 held by the Minister be paid to the RSPCA;3Ms Sutcliffe pay to the RSPCA $6,830 for veterinary and boarding costs incurred by the RSPCA in respect of cats seized;4Ms Sutcliffe surrender all cats in her custody and control as at 16 November 2015 to an inspector within 14 days;5Ms Sutcliffe be prohibited from acquiring or having custody of any animal until further order;6Ms Sutcliffe pay to the RSPCA $9,500 by way of legal costs;7Ms Sutcliffe pay court costs and mandatory Victims of Crime levies.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.