Sanson v Ministry for Primary Industries - [2023] NZHC 947

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CRI-2023-454-4

[2023] NZHC 947

IN THE MATTER Of an appeal against conviction and sentence

BETWEEN

RICHARD JOHN SANSON

Appellant

AND

MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES

Respondent

Hearing: 26 April 2023

Counsel:

P J Drummond for Appellant A M Barham for Respondent

Judgment:

27 April 2023

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Richard Sanson, together with his brother Geoffrey Sanson, pleaded guilty to animal welfare charges in respect of the reckless ill-treatment of a large number of stock on the three blocks of farmland they jointly owned and managed. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) had twice previously intervened following concerns about treatment of animals on the farms. Mr Sanson was also found guilty following a judge-alone trial of two charges of aggravated assault of the MPI official and veterinarian who inspected the animals. He was sentenced to a total of two years and two months’ imprisonment on all charges. He appeals his conviction and sentence on the aggravated assault charges.

SANSON v MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2023] NZHC 947 [27 April 2023]

Background

[2] Mr Sanson and his brother pleaded guilty to two charges of reckless ill-treatment of animals,1 seven charges of failing to comply with s 10 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (the Act),2 one charge of failing to comply with s 11 of the Act,3 and one charge of transporting an animal unfit for transport.4

[3] In 2014 and again in 2016, MPI raised concerns with Mr Sanson and his brother about the treatment of animals on their farms, giving them the opportunity to rectify the problems. After the 2014 inspection, the defendants were given an official warning with further monitoring put in place. After the 2016 inspection, an instruction was issued under s 130(1)(b) of the Act requiring the defendants to engage a farm advisor to provide a feed and management plan.5 After each inspection some improvements were made but there were no substantive changes to farming practices, and conditions on the farms deteriorated again.

[4] On 29 April 2020, an MPI animal welfare inspector and a vet visited the farms to inspect the sheep and cattle. Pasture levels on all three blocks of land were extremely low and a significant number of animals were in poor condition. The inspection was cut short as a result of Mr Sanson’s aggression towards the inspector and the vet which resulted in the aggravated assault charges.

[5] On 6 May 2020, an MPI team arrived to carry out a full assessment of all livestock. The District Court Judge, in his sentencing decision, described the conditions on the blocks of farmland as follows:6
The failings on the farm included massive overstocking and serious underfeeding. Poor infrastructure was found together with the lack of stockproof fencing and insufficient reticulated stock water supply. Differing classes of stock were being run together with no regard for their differing

1 Animal Welfare Act 1999,…

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 Sanson v Ministry for Primary Industries 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: [2023] NZHC 947
Decision Date: 27 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Richard Sanson appeals against his conviction and sentence in respect of charges arising from his conduct in relation to the treatment of animals on three blocks of farmland he jointly owned and managed with his brother Geoffrey Sanson. They had previously been warned by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) following concerns about the treatment of animals on the farms. Mr Sanson was also found guilty following a judge-alone trial of two charges of aggravated assault of the MPI official and veterinarian who inspected the animals. He was sentenced to a total of two years and two months’ imprisonment on all charges. He appeals his conviction and sentence on the aggravated assault charges. The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, holding that there was sufficient evidence before the District Court Judge to enable him to be sure that Mr Sanson intended to obstruct the victims in the execution of their duty. The court allowed the appeal against sentence, holding that there were two errors in the sentence imposed, namely the failure to take into account the offer of reparation and the failure properly to consider totality and the effect of the Disqualification. The sentence of two years and two months’ imprisonment is quashed and replaced by a sentence of eight months’ home detention, 150 hours’ community work, reparation of $2,000 to each victim to be paid in full by 5 May 2023, the Disqualification and costs.

Orders