Bell P at [1]; Basten JA at [109]; Simpson AJA at [127]
Decision:
The parties are directed to file any written submissions, not exceeding 5 pages, as to the appropriateness of orders being made in the form of those set out in paragraph [107] below by 4.00pm on Wednesday 3 February 2021 with any reply submissions by 4.00pm on 5 February 2021, such submissions also to the question of costs in light of the substantive reasons contained in the judgments of the Court.
Catchwords:
ANIMALS - Cruelty to animals – consideration of the element of “intention of inflicting severe pain” in s 530(1) of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - defences to offence of serious cruelty to animals under s 530(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – meaning of “pest animals” – meaning of “in the course of or for the purposes of extermination of pest animals” – whether animal killed was a “pest animal” within the meaning of s 530(2) of the Crimes Act – whether killing of animal was “in the course of or for the purposes of extermination of pest animals” – statutory context – context includes other legislation addressing cruelty to animals
CRIMINAL LAW – cruelty to animals – offence of serious cruelty to animals – elements of offence - consideration of the element of “intention of inflicting severe pain” in s 530(1) of Crimes Act - statutory defence – whether animal killed was a “pest animal” within the meaning of s 530(2) of the Crimes Act – whether killing of animal was “in the course of or for the purposes of extermination of pest animals”
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION – where provision in question one of a number of provisions in various statutes concerned with prevention of cruelty to animals – other statutes forming part of the statutory context – consideration of the use of dictionaries in statutory interpretation
WORDS AND PHRASES – “pest animal” – “extermination” – “in the course of or for the purposes of extermination of pest animals”
[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 Will v Brighton
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Will v Brighton [2020] NSWCA 355
Case
[2020] NSWCA 355
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the interpretation of provisions within the *Crimes Act 1900* (NSW) relating to cruelty to animals. The appellant, Will, was charged with serious cruelty to an animal under section 530(1) of the Act. The central dispute revolved around whether the killing of an animal by the appellant fell within the defence provided by section 530(2), which exempts conduct occurring in the course of or for the purposes of exterminating "pest animals". The case was heard by Bell P, Basten JA, and Simpson AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were primarily concerned with the elements of the offence of serious cruelty to animals and the scope of the statutory defence. Specifically, the court had to determine the meaning of "intention of inflicting severe pain" as an element of the offence under section 530(1). Furthermore, the court was required to interpret the terms "pest animals" and "in the course of or for the purposes of extermination of pest animals" as they appear in the defence provision under section 530(2). This involved considering the statutory context, including other legislation addressing animal cruelty, and the potential use of dictionaries in statutory interpretation.
The court's reasoning focused on a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, considering the *Crimes Act* in conjunction with other legislation aimed at preventing animal cruelty. The judges examined the ordinary meaning of the terms in question, as well as their meaning within the broader legislative scheme. The court considered whether the animal killed by the appellant qualified as a "pest animal" and whether the appellant's actions were genuinely undertaken for the purpose of exterminating such animals, as contemplated by the defence. The court also analysed the mens rea requirement for the offence, namely the "intention of inflicting severe pain".
The court did not make final substantive orders at this stage. Instead, the parties were directed to file written submissions regarding the appropriateness of proposed orders, as well as submissions on the question of costs, in light of the court's substantive reasons.
Orders
Orders of the court
The parties are directed to file any written submissions, not exceeding 5 pages, as to the appropriateness of orders being made in the form of those set out in paragraph [107] below by 4.00pm on Wednesday 3 February 2021 with any reply submissions by 4.00pm on 5 February 2021, such submissions also to the question of costs in light of the substantive reasons contained in the judgments of the Court.