A v North Taranaki SPCA - [2016] NZHC 688

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANTS PURSUANT TO SECTION 200 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NEW PLYMOUTH REGISTRY

CRI-2016-443-001

CRI-2016-443-002 [2016] NZHC 688

BETWEEN
A

Appellant

AND

NORTH TARANAKI SPCA Respondent

CRI-2016-443-003

CRI-2016-443-004

BETWEEN A Appellant

ANDNORTH TARANAKI SPCA Respondent

Hearing: 6 April 2016

Counsel:

M S Boyd for first named appellant
J M Woodcock for second named appellant
S J Simpkin for respondent

Judgment:

14 April 2016

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

[1] The appellants live and work together. Their desire to care for stray cats has led to their prosecution by the respondent under s 12 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act), charging that they did not ensure that the physical health and behavioural
needs of eight cats in their care were met.

A v NORTH TARANAKI SPCA [2016] NZHC 688 [14 April 2016]

[2] Both appellants promptly pleaded guilty but applied for discharges without conviction, and permanent name suppression. Those applications were dismissed by Judge G P Barkle in the District Court at New Plymouth on 21 December 2015.1
Both were convicted on the charge and ordered to pay reparation of $4,500. Under s 169 of the Act, orders were made that they are to own or have authority over no more than two cats each for a period of three years. An order was also made for the forfeiture of the cats that had been taken by the SPCA.

[3] Both appellants have now appealed their convictions and the refusal of name suppression. On appeal, they have repeated the arguments that did not find favour in the District Court.

[4] The appellants are 55 and 46 years of age respectively. They have for some time had a practice of taking in stray cats and caring for them. They take their responsibilities seriously. They regularly take the cats to a veterinarian, and also worm and de-flea the cats.

[5] Prior to July 2014, the appellants had lived at a property they shared with their mother, which was more than adequate for caring for the cats they took in. However, after that property became unavailable to them, they have had difficulties finding other accommodation and have been living in a motor vehicle that they have had to share with the eight cats.

[6] On 24 December 2014, an SPCA inspector discovered the appellants’ vehicle parked at an address with their eight cats inside it. Although a nearby building had provided shade for the vehicle earlier in the day, it was exposed to the sun at the time and the inspector recorded a temperature of 22 degrees Celsius. The inspector discovered that there were a number of litter boxes in the vehicle, as well as bowls of biscuits and clean drinking water. The inspector noted a strong smell of ammonia and that one of the cats had a severe mouth infection. That cat had to be euthanised. The remaining cats were examined by a veterinarian,…

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 A v North Taranaki SPCA

Details

AGLC: A v North Taranaki SPCA [2016] NZHC 688
Case: [2016] NZHC 688
Decision Date: 14 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellants, who have a history of taking in and caring for stray cats, appealed their convictions under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 and the refusal of name suppression. They had been prosecuted by the North Taranaki SPCA for not ensuring the physical health and behavioural needs of eight cats in their care were met. They had pleaded guilty but sought discharges without conviction and permanent name suppression, which were dismissed by the District Court. The appellants argued that the consequences of a conviction, including potential adverse impacts on their employment, were out of proportion to the gravity of their offence. They also argued that publication of their names and circumstances would cause them extreme hardship.

The High Court found that the appellants' vulnerability to their employer's unreasonable exploitation of a conviction created the requisite prospect that a conviction would be out of proportion to the gravity of the offence. The Court also found that the appellants' concerns about the consequences of publication reaching the threshold of extreme hardship. Therefore, the Court allowed both parts of the appeal, ordering discharges without conviction for both appellants and suppressing their names and circumstances. The appellants must continue to comply with certain orders made by the District Court, including paying reparation, limiting the number of cats they can own, and forfeiting three cats in the SPCA's custody.

Orders