Minister for Primary Industries v Erickson - [2016] NZHC 2635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CRI-2016-419-000049 [2016] NZHC 2635

BETWEEN
MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY

INDUSTRIES Appellant

AND

NOEL PIRIKI ERICKSON Defendant

Hearing: 28 October 2016

Appearances:

L Dunn and T Needham for Appellant
T Sutcliffe for Defendant

Judgment:

7 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 7 November 2016 at 2.00 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………..

MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES v ERICKSON [2016] NZHC 2635 [7 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] In 2015 Noel Erickson was employed as a slaughterman at Down Cow Limited in the Waikato, which supplies pet food or meat for processing into pet food. Over a two-day period in August 2015 covert filming by an animal rights group captured Mr Erickson ill-treating bobby calves. He pleaded guilty to eight charges of ill-treating the animals and was sentenced to 10 months’ home detention and 200 hours community work.1

[2] The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) appeals the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate as a result of the Judge taking too low a starting point and allowing an inappropriate and/or excessive discount for inadequate training and supervision.2 It seeks to have the sentence set aside and substituted with one of imprisonment.

The offending

[3] Mr Erikson’s job was to assist with the processing of bobby calves, a few days old and destined for slaughter. Specifically, he was required to unload the calves from transport into an enclosure, shift them to a gated slaughter area, stun and slaughter them and hang the carcasses for further processing. This work was subject to legislative control under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Animal Welfare (Commercial Slaughter) Code of Welfare 2010 (Commercial Slaughter Code), the Code of Welfare for Dairy Cattle (the Dairy Cattle Code) and the Animal Welfare (Transport Within New Zealand) Code of Welfare.

[4] The charges to which Mr Erickson pleaded guilty were:

(a) Two charges under s 28(1)(d) Animal Welfare Act 1999 of wilfully ill- treating a calf with the result that it is seriously injured or impaired.

1 Ministry for Primary Industries v Erickson [2016] NZDC 15760. Mr Erickson was also disqualified from owning or exercising authority over any animal for a period of three years.
2 The Solicitor-General has consented to the appeal pursuant to s 246 Criminal Procedure Act
2011.

The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment or a maximum fine

of $100,000 or both;

(b)One charge under s 12(c) Animal Welfare Act 1999 of killing a calf in such a manner that it suffers unreasonable or unnecessary pain or distress. The maximum penalty is 12 months’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of $50,000 or both;

(c) Two representative charges under s 28A(1)(d) of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 of recklessly ill-treating calves with the result that they are seriously injured or impaired. The maximum penalty is three years’ imprisonment or a maximum fine of $75,000 or both;

(d)Four representative charges under…

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 Minister for Primary Industries v Erickson 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: [2016] NZHC 2635
Decision Date: 7 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) against Noel Erickson, a former slaughterman at Down Cow Limited, who had been sentenced for multiple charges of animal cruelty. The MPI sought to challenge the adequacy of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly inadequate due to the Judge taking too low a starting point and allowing an inappropriate and/or excessive discount for inadequate training and supervision. The appeal focused on whether the starting point for sentencing was appropriate and whether the discount given for inadequate training and supervision was excessive.

The court examined the nature of Erickson's offending, which involved the brutal treatment of newborn calves over a two-day period, causing significant pain and suffering. The court considered precedent cases such as Ministry for Primary Industries v Erasmus and Ministry for Primary Industries v Whitelock, where higher starting points were set due to the severity of the offending. The court found that while Erickson's actions were callous and brutal, they did not reach the same level of sustained suffering or sadistic intent as in the precedent cases. Therefore, a starting point of three years and six months was deemed appropriate. The court also found that the discount for inadequate training and supervision should have been three months rather than six to eight months, and an additional five percent discount for remorse should have been given. This led to an adjusted starting point of two years and six months, warranting a term of imprisonment rather than home detention.

The High Court ultimately quashed the original sentence of home detention and community work, substituting it with a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Erickson was required to present himself at the Hamilton Police Station at midday on 11 November 2016 to commence his new sentence.

Orders