Walters v Manawatu SPCA - [2018] NZHC 909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIŌEA ROHE

CRI-2018-454-3

[2018] NZHC 909

BETWEEN
PETER MICHAEL WALTERS

Appellant

AND

MANAWATU SPCA

Respondent

Hearing: 10 April 2018

Appearances:

J Langford for Appellant

K van der Plas for Respondent

Judgment:

2 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

Introduction

[1] Mr Walters’ bay and white pony, Cashew, was euthanised due to a severe case of laminitis in April 2016. The SPCA charged Mr Walters with ill-treating Cashew by failing to provide appropriate and timely health interventions, causing the animal to suffer unreasonable and unnecessary pain or distress.1

[2] Mr Walters had been previously convicted in 2012 of failing to ensure the physical health and behavioural needs of Cashew were met.2 The pony had then developed laminitis and was experiencing difficulty standing and walking.

[3] The convictions were under different sections of the Animal Welfare Act 1999 (AWA).

1 Animal Welfare Act 1999, s 29(a).
2 Section 12(a). That conviction related to a period between June and September 2010.

WALTERS v MANAWATU SPCA [2018] NZHC 909 [2 May 2018]

[4] Mr Walters appeals from the District Court Judge’s pre-trial decision which ruled that the 2012 conviction was admissible as evidence and able to be adduced at the Judge alone trial on the present charge.3

[5]For the reasons outlined below, the appeal is dismissed.

Background

[6]The background to this matter is set out by the District Court Judge as follows:4

[1] On 26 April 2016, an SPCA inspector and a veterinarian went to the defendant’s property in Westbrook. When they arrived, Mr Walters and a barefoot trimmer were in the very early process of trimming the hooves of one of Mr Walters’ horses, a bay and white pony called Cashew.

[2] After a physical examination of Cashew, the veterinarian concluded that the horse was suffering from chronic active laminitis. This is a painful hoof condition in which the attachment between the hoof wall and the pedal bone inside the foot become inflamed and weakened. One of the pre- disposing factors of laminitis is poor hoof care, specifically overgrowth. Cashew was euthanised the same day on the recommendation of the veterinarian. Her view was that Cashew was suffering from the most severe and chronic case of laminitis she had ever seen.

[3] The barefoot trimmer/farrier who was the primary hoof care provider for Cashew had not seen him for almost four and a half months.

The relevant provisions

[7]The charging documents say that Mr Walters:

Did ill-treat an animal, namely a bay and white pony known as Cashew, by failing to provide appropriate and timely health interventions, causing the animal to suffer unreasonable and unnecessary pain or distress.⁵

[8]Section 2 of the AWA defines “Ill-treat” as:

ill-treat, in relation to an animal, means causing the animal to suffer, by any act or omission, pain or distress that in its kind or degree, or in its object, or in the circumstances in which it is inflicted,…

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 Walters v Manawatu SPCA

Details

AGLC: Walters v Manawatu SPCA [2018] NZHC 909
Case: [2018] NZHC 909
Decision Date: 2 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Walters v Manawatu SPCA, Mr. Walters appealed against the District Court decision that allowed evidence of his 2012 conviction for failing to meet the physical and health needs of his pony, Cashew, to be used in his current trial for ill-treating Cashew. The key issues in the appeal were whether the evidence was propensity evidence, whether it was relevant to the assessment of reasonableness, and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The High Court found that the evidence was indeed propensity evidence, but it was relevant in assessing the reasonableness of Mr. Walters’ actions under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The Court also concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. The appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was granted due to the novel issue involved. The decision highlights the importance of considering a defendant's knowledge and previous convictions when assessing strict liability offences under the Animal Welfare Act.

Orders