Verhagen v RSPCA - [2025] QDC 55

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Verhagen v RSPCA [2025] QDC 55

PARTIES: Elizabeth Alice VERHAGEN

(Appellant)

v

RSPCA

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S

Appeal No 19 of 2023

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Ipswich

DEVIVERED ON:

17 April 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

5 September 2024

JUDGE:

Lynch KC DCJ

ORDERS:
1.   In respect of charge 3 of the complaint sworn on 1/7/2020, and charges 8, 14 and 15 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are set aside and instead verdicts of not guilty are entered. The appellant is discharged in respect of those charges.

2.   In respect of the appeals against conviction of charges 1, 10 and 30 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are confirmed, subject to the factual findings as set out in these reasons.

3.   In respect of charges 3, 7, 9, 13, 26 and 28 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
ANIMALS – ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT – PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS – OFFENCES – GENERALLY – FAILING TO COMPLY WITH DUTY OF CARE – FAILING TO COMPLY WITH COMPULSORY CODE REQUIREMENT FOR BREEDING DOGS – FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR AN ANIMAL – FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE FOOD OR WATER FOR AN ANIMAL – FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE ACCOMODATION FOR AN ANIMAL – whether a person to whom a compulsory code of conduct applied – whether caused pain to an animal that was unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable – whether failed to take reasonable steps to provide for animals’ needs in a way appropriate for food or water, or accommodation, or treatment of disease or injury

ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT – PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES – whether prosecution authorised by responsible Department – whether a private prosecution – whether evidence obtained by ex-employee admissible upon trial – whether search and seizure authorised by Act – whether warrant properly issued - whether search and seizure lawful

ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT – PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES – whether evidence sufficient to satisfy charges – whether proceedings commenced within time limit – whether documentary evidence of treatment of animals admissible

JUSTICES ACT – SECTION 222 APPEAL – APPEAL A REHEARING ON THE EVIDENCE PLUS ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE – whether fresh evidence admissible – whether special reason demonstrated – whether defendant denied opportunity to introduce evidence at trial

TRIAL OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES – SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF PARTICULARS – whether prosecution bound by particulars – whether open to court to convict upon basis different to that particularised – whether prosecution sought to amend or alter the particulars

LEGISLATION:
Animal Care and Protection Act 2021 ss 12, 15, 17, 18, 178
Evidence Act 1977 s 93

Justices Act 1886 ss 222, 223, 225

CASES:
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129
Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police (2007) 1 Qd R 344
R…

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 Verhagen v RSPCA

Details

AGLC: Verhagen v RSPCA [2025] QDC 55
Case: [2025] QDC 55
Decision Date: 17 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Verhagen was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria of several offences under the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001. The prosecution alleged that Verhagen, who operated a dog breeding business, failed to provide adequate care for numerous dogs on his property, resulting in their suffering and deaths. The Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the conviction and determining the appropriate outcome.

The central legal issues revolved around whether Verhagen was subject to the compulsory code of conduct for breeding dogs, whether he caused unjustifiable, unnecessary, or unreasonable pain to animals, and whether he failed to take reasonable steps to provide for the animals' needs in terms of food, water, accommodation, and treatment for diseases or injuries. Additionally, the appeal considered procedural issues related to the prosecution, admissibility of evidence obtained by an ex-employee, and whether the search and seizure were lawful.

The Court of Appeal found that the prosecution had failed to prove several of the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Specifically, the Court set aside the verdicts of guilty for charges 3 of the complaint sworn on 1/7/2020, and charges 8, 14, and 15 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, and entered verdicts of not guilty for those charges. The Court confirmed the convictions for charges 1, 10, 30 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, and charges 3, 7, 9, 13, 26, and 28 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020.

The Court of Appeal delivered its orders accordingly. The appellant was discharged in respect of the charges for which the verdicts were set aside. For the other charges, the verdicts of guilty were confirmed, subject to the factual findings detailed in the reasons for judgment.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. In respect of charge 3 of the complaint sworn on 1/7/2020, and charges 8, 14 and 15 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are set aside and instead verdicts of not guilty are entered. The appellant is discharged in respect of those charges.

2. In respect of the appeals against conviction of charges 1, 10 and 30 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are confirmed, subject to the factual findings as set out in these reasons.

3. In respect of charges 3, 7, 9, 13, 26 and 28 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are confirmed.

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.

CITATION:	Verhagen v RSPCA [2025] QDC 55
PARTIES:	Elizabeth Alice VERHAGEN
(Appellant)
v
RSPCA
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S	Appeal No 19 of 2023
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Ipswich
DEVIVERED ON:	17 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:	5 September 2024
JUDGE:	Lynch KC DCJ
ORDERS:	1. In respect of charge 3 of the complaint sworn on 1/7/2020, and charges 8, 14 and 15 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are set aside and instead verdicts of not guilty are entered. The appellant is discharged in respect of those charges. 2. In respect of the appeals against conviction of charges 1, 10 and 30 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are confirmed, subject to the factual findings as set out in these reasons. 3. In respect of charges 3, 7, 9, 13, 26 and 28 of the complaint sworn on 19/8/2020, the verdicts of guilty are confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	ANIMALS – ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT – PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS – OFFENCES – GENERALLY – FAILING TO COMPLY WITH DUTY OF CARE – FAILING TO COMPLY WITH COMPULSORY CODE REQUIREMENT FOR BREEDING DOGS – FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TREATMENT FOR AN ANIMAL – FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE FOOD OR WATER FOR AN ANIMAL – FAILING TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE ACCOMODATION FOR AN ANIMAL – whether a person to whom a compulsory code of conduct applied – whether caused pain to an animal that was unjustifiable, unnecessary or unreasonable – whether failed to take reasonable steps to provide for animals’ needs in a way appropriate for food or water, or accommodation, or treatment of disease or injury ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT – PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES – whether prosecution authorised by responsible Department – whether a private prosecution – whether evidence obtained by ex-employee admissible upon trial – whether search and seizure authorised by Act – whether warrant properly issued - whether search and seizure lawful ANIMAL CARE AND PROTECTION ACT – PROCEEDINGS FOR OFFENCES – whether evidence sufficient to satisfy charges – whether proceedings commenced within time limit – whether documentary evidence of treatment of animals admissible JUSTICES ACT – SECTION 222 APPEAL – APPEAL A REHEARING ON THE EVIDENCE PLUS ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE – whether fresh evidence admissible – whether special reason demonstrated – whether defendant denied opportunity to introduce evidence at trial TRIAL OF CRIMINAL OFFENCES – SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF PARTICULARS – whether prosecution bound by particulars – whether open to court to convict upon basis different to that particularised – whether prosecution sought to amend or alter the particulars
LEGISLATION:	Animal Care and Protection Act 2021 ss 12, 15, 17, 18, 178 Evidence Act 1977 s 93 Justices Act 1886 ss 222, 223, 225
CASES:	Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Lee v Lee (2019) 266 CLR 129 Pavlovic v Commissioner of Police (2007) 1 Qd R 344 R…