Legal Research
Cases
TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows

TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows

Link copied

Case Copied 3 July 2023 83 min read

Contents

On this page

[2023] TASFC 4

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
CITATION:	TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2023] TASFC 4
PARTIES:	TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD (ACN 061 996 174)
v
BURROWS, Rae (DPIPWE)
FILE NO:	FCA 3138/2022
DELIVERED ON:	3 July 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	17 April 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Estcourt J, Martin AJ, Porter AJ
CATCHWORDS:

Animals – Prevention of cruelty to animals – Offences – Offence to use a method of management of animals reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering – Charge relating to transport of horses contained in a trailer within a ship's hold –Allegations that the method of management included failures to take certain measures – Where legislation imposed general duty on persons with care and control of animals to take all reasonable measures to ensure their welfare – To the extent a method of management includes omissions, the omitted measures must be reasonable ones to have been taken in the circumstances.

Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), ss 6, 7.
TT-Line v Burrows [2021] TASFC 3, 33 Tas R 163, Mitchell v Marshall [2014] TASSC 43, R v Iannelli
[2003] NSWCCA 1, 56 NSWLR 247, considered.
DPP (Cth) v Poniatowska [2011] HCA 43, 244 CLR 408, applied.
Aust Dig Animals [43]

Magistrates – Jurisdiction and procedure generally – Procedure – The hearing – General matters – Procedural fairness and natural justice – Magistrate found charge made out on a basis not particularised in the complaint – Magistrate failed to raise the issue as potential basis for liability and to hear and determine any application to amend complaint – Procedural unfairness made out.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1122]

Criminal Law – Criminal liability and capacity – Defence matters – Ignorance and mistake of fact – Availability of defence of honest and reasonable mistake – Particular cases – Evidential burden on a corporate defendant to raise the ground of exculpation – Whether mistaken belief on the part of a corporation sufficiently raised – Whether finding that defence negatived reasonably open of the whole of the evidence.

Animal Welfare Act 1993(Tas), s 3A(3)(a).
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Carey (1976) 15 SASR 270, GJ Coles & Co Ltd v Goldsworthy [1985] WAR
183, considered.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [2065]
Criminal Law – Criminal liability and capacity – Defence matters – Ignorance and mistake of fact –

Availability of defence of honest and reasonable mistake – Generally – Mistaken belief in a state of affairs which if true would make an accused's actions "innocent" – Where applicant faced primary charge and sought to raise mistake of fact – Where applicant had pleaded guilty to related regulatory offences but irrelevant to strict consideration of primary charge – Observations on the meaning of "innocent".

CTM v The Queen [2008] HCA 25, 236 CLR 440, Bell v Tasmania [2021] HCA 42, 96 ALJR 22, considered.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [2064]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel

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 TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows 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: [2023] TASFC 4
Decision Date: 3 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

TT-Line Company Pty Ltd (TT-Line) appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against a decision of the Magistrates Court. The dispute concerned charges of animal cruelty brought against TT-Line, relating to the transport of horses in a trailer within the hold of a ship. The prosecution alleged that TT-Line's method of managing the horses was reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering, specifically by failing to take certain measures during the transport.

The Full Court was required to determine whether TT-Line had breached its general duty under the *Animal Welfare Act 2000* (Tas) to take all reasonable measures to ensure the welfare of the horses under its care and control. This involved considering whether the alleged omissions in the method of management constituted a failure to take reasonable measures, and if so, whether this failure was reasonably likely to cause unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering to the animals.

The Court reasoned that the statutory duty imposed a positive obligation to take all reasonable measures for animal welfare. Where a method of management involves omissions, the focus must be on whether the omitted measures were themselves reasonable ones to have taken in the circumstances. The Court considered the specific circumstances of the transport, including the duration, the environment within the ship's hold, and the nature of the trailer, to assess whether the alleged failures to act amounted to a breach of the duty of care. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, upholding the finding of guilt against TT-Line.

Orders