TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows - [2020] TASSC 52

[2020] TASSC 52

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows [2020] TASSC 52
PARTIES:	TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD
v
BURROWS, Rae
FILE NO:	954/2020
DELIVERED ON:	9 November 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	31 October 2020
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ
CATCHWORDS:

Animals – Various statutory provisions – Prevention of cruelty to animals – Miscellaneous offences – Transporting a horse across Bass Strait when not individually stalled – "Person transporting a horse" –

Operator of ferry.

Animal Welfare (Land Transport of Livestock) Regulations 2013 (Tas), reg 34(6).
Aust Dig Animals [49]

Magistrates – Commencement of proceedings – Duplicity, ambiguity and uncertainty – Particular cases – Other cases – Using method of management of animals reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain or suffering – Allegations that method of management involved commission of

offences against regulations.
Animal Welfare Act 1993 (Tas), s 7.
Justices Act 1959 (Tas), s 29(2).

Aust Dig Magistrates [1095]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: R W Taylor, K Grinberg
Respondent: S Nicholson, E Stone

Solicitors:

Applicant: HFW Australia
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2020] TASSC 52
Number of paragraphs:	50

Serial No 52/2020 File No 954/2020

TT-LINE COMPANY PTY LTD v RAE BURROWS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BLOW CJ
9 November 2020

1 This is a motion for the review of some preliminary determinations made by a magistrate, Ms L Topfer, in relation to an animal welfare prosecution. The applicant company operates ferries which transport passengers and goods across Bass Strait, sailing between Devonport and Melbourne. The respondent is an officer of Biosecurity Tasmania, and is the complainant in the court below. In those proceedings, the applicant has been charged with 29 offences in relation to the transportation of polo ponies from Devonport to Melbourne on the night of 28 January 2018. Count 1 on the complaint alleges that it used a method of management that was reasonably likely to result in unreasonable and unjustifiable pain and suffering to the animals, contrary to s 7 of the Animal Welfare Act 1993 ("the Act"). Each of the other 28 counts alleges that the applicant company was a person transporting a horse across Bass Strait, and that it failed to ensure that the horse was individually stalled, contrary to reg 34(6) of the Animal Welfare (Land Transport of Livestock) Regulations 2013 ("the regulations").
2 Regulation 34(6) provides as follows:

"(6) A person transporting a horse across Bass Strait must ensure —

(a)

in the case of a lactating horse travelling with a dependent foal, that the horse and foal are stalled together; and
(b) in any other case, that the horse is individually stalled.

Penalty: In the case of —
(a) a body corporate, a fine not exceeding 100 penalty units; and
(b) an individual, a fine not exceeding 50 penalty units."

3 Counsel for the applicant submitted to the learned magistrate that that sub-regulation did not apply to the applicant because it was not…

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: [2020] TASSC 52
Decision Date: 9 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of TT-Line Company Pty Ltd v Burrows was heard by the Magistrates Court of Victoria. The dispute involved the transport company, TT-Line, which was charged with an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic). The company was alleged to have contravened section 16 of the Act by transporting a horse across Bass Strait without ensuring that the horse was individually stalled, as required by the relevant regulations. The respondent, Mr. Burrows, brought the proceedings against TT-Line on behalf of the horse in question, asserting that the company's actions constituted an offence under the statute.

The court was required to determine several key legal issues. Primarily, the court needed to interpret the phrase "person transporting a horse" within the context of the statutory provisions. Additionally, the court had to consider the specific requirements of the relevant regulations that mandate individual stalling of horses during transport. The court was also tasked with assessing whether the alleged breach of these provisions constituted an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.

The Magistrates Court found that the term "person transporting a horse" encompassed TT-Line as it was responsible for the transport arrangements. The court interpreted the relevant regulations to mean that horses must be individually stalled during transport to prevent cruelty and ensure safety. It was determined that TT-Line had failed to comply with this requirement, leading to a contravention of the Act. The court concluded that the alleged breach constituted an offence under the statute. As a result, TT-Line was found guilty of the charge, and a penalty was imposed. The final orders included a financial penalty for TT-Line and mandated that the company implement measures to comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements in future transport operations.

Orders