The Animal Law Toolkit December 2009 About Voiceless
Voiceless is an independent non-profit Patrons think tank dedicated to alleviating the • J.M. Coetzee, Nobel Prize for Literature Winner suffering of animals in Australia. 2003, author of The Lives of Animals Established by father and daughter and Elizabeth Costello team, Brian Sherman AM and Ondine • Brian Sherman AM Sherman, Voiceless: Ambassadors • Creates and fosters networks of leading lawyers, • Hugo Weaving (Last Ride, Little Fish, The Lord of politicians and academics to influence law and the Rings Trilogy, The Matrix Trilogy, Priscilla Queen public policy; of the Desert)
• Conducts high quality research and analysis of • Abbie Cornish (Bright Star, Stop-Loss, Elizabeth: The animal industries, exposing legalised cruelty and Golden Age, A Good Year, Candy, Somersault) promoting informed debate; • Lindsay McDougall (aka ‘The Doctor’) from the • Creates a groundswell for social change by Triple J Breakfast Show and Triple J TV building and fortifying the Australian animal protection movement with select Grants and For further information visit www.voiceless.org.au Prizes; and This document has been researched and written by • Aims to inform consumers and empower them to Katrina Sharman and Lara Cumming, with editorial make animal-friendly choices. and research support from Brian Sherman AM, Ondine Sherman, Elaine Morris, Kelly Blainey Lyell, Claudia Hoeben, Lucy King, Claire Bradbury, Melissa Knoll and Elizabeth Usher.
For further information contact: Disclaimer: Voiceless Limited ACN 108 494 631 (‘Voiceless’) is a company limited by guarantee. Voiceless is Voiceless not a legal practice and does not give legal advice to individuals or organisations. While Voiceless has made 2 Paddington Street every effort to ensure the accuracy of information, including images, presented in this Guide, Voiceless does not Paddington NSW 2021 AUSTRALIA guarantee the accuracy or completeness of that information. Information is provided by Voiceless as general T: + 612 9357 0723 F: + 612 9357 0711 information only and any use of or reliance on it should only be undertaken on a strictly voluntary basis after email [email protected] an independent review by a qualified legal practitioner (or other expert). Voiceless is not responsible for, and © December 2009 disclaims all liability for, any loss or damage arising out of the use of or reliance on this Guide. This Guide is ISBN: 978-0-9803740-4-9 (paperback) protected by copyright and no part of it should be reproduced in any form without the consent of Voiceless. To ISBN: 978-0-9803740-5-6 (online) learn more about Voiceless, please visit www.voiceless.org.au Table of Contents
1. What is Animal Law? 1 1.1 Animal Law 1 1.2 Practice Areas in Animal Law 2 2. What are the Key Issues that Animal Law Seeks to Address? 3 2.1 Issues in Animal Law 3 2.2 Examples of Animal Law Cases 8 3. What is the State of the Animal Law Movement? 17 3.1 The Movement 17 3.2 Legal Organisations Focusing on Animal Protection Issues 17 3.3 Animal Law Courses 18 3.4 Animal Law Course Outlines 20 3.5 Objectives of Legal Organisations Focusing on Animal Protection Issues 21 3.6 Journals Focusing on Animal Law 22 3.7 Australian Conferences Focusing on Animal Law 22 3.8 Australian Animal Lawyers 23 4. How Can I Become More Involved in the Animal Law Movement? 25 5. Additional Reading and Resources 27 5.1 Australian Legislation 27 5.2 Federal Model Codes of Practice for Animal Welfare 27 5.3 Websites of Australian Animal Protection Groups 29 5.4 Books and Journal Articles 30 5.5 Sample Petition 34 Introduction 1. What is Animal Law? Animal law is a cutting edge area of law which is 1.1 Animal Law Animal rights lawyers do not argue that animals Intellectual Property Working on disputes related to ‘patented’ animals. rapidly expanding. In recent years there has been As our understanding of animal behaviour and should be given the same rights as humans. Rather, a proliferation in scholarly writing on the subject, different animals require different rights depending intelligence has increased, there has been broad Litigation an increased demand for animal law courses on their needs and capabilities.6 The fundamental acceptance that animals are sentient creatures Running cases to protect farm animals, companion in universities and the founding of numerous tenet of animal rights law is that the law should not who should be able to live free from suffering and animals, wild animals or animals used for sport, organisations whose sole aim is to promote the treat animals as mere ‘things’. This is based on the abuse. Unfortunately, we live in an era where more entertainment or scientific purposes. protection of animals. The President of the Australian animals are suffering than ever before. The law has assumption that unless animals have rights, they will Law Reform Commission, Professor David Weisbrot continue to be treated by society as resources to an important role to play in protecting animals from Product Liability Cases AM, summed up these changes when he described exploitation and cruelty. However, the current legal satisfy human wants and needs. Running cases that concern the death or disablement animal law as ‘potentially the next great social justice regime is proving grossly inadequate. of animals. movement’.1 1.2 Practice Areas in Animal Law Both the common law and Australian statute Animal Law is a diverse field which requires Tort Law In recognition of the growing interest in animal law, law classify animals as ‘things’.2 This is the same practitioners to draw on many legal disciplines. Some Defending animal activists or assisting in veterinary Voiceless has prepared this ‘Animal Law Toolkit’ to classification given to objects or pieces of property. potential areas of practice are outlined below. malpractice suits. introduce students, academics, legal practitioners, law People, on the other hand, are classified as legal Administrative Law firms and animal protectionists to key issues in the persons. This distinction is crucial as it determines Challenging ministerial and departmental decisions field. The Toolkit is intended to provide: who ‘counts’ for legal purposes.3 Only legal persons and agency rules and regulations that affect the are given a voice in our legal system and afforded • individuals with information about key animal law interests of animals. issues; protection through the possession of legal rights. ‘Things’, being unable to possess rights, are the Companion Animals • students with the tools to request animal law property of legal persons and can therefore be Representing ‘death row’ dogs that are deemed a courses at their university; and subjected to gross abuse and exploitation. danger to the community.
• law firms and legal practitioners with reasons In recognition of this problem, two streams of law Criminal Law to expand their practice areas to include animal have developed that aim to provide animals with Defending animal activists accused of criminal activity law matters, with a view to facilitating the greater protection: and prosecuting breaches of anti-cruelty legislation. administration of justice for animals. 1. Animal welfare law Constitutional Law We hope that as debate and discussion about Defending activists’ freedom of political communication. the institutionalised suffering of animals gathers Animal welfare is a philosophy which is concerned momentum, this Toolkit will serve as a helpful starting with regulating the use of animals to reduce Consumer Protection Law point for those seeking to provide animals with the unnecessary pain and suffering. ‘Animal welfarists’ Pursuing acts of misleading or deceptive advertising justice they deserve. do not seek to question the status of animals as by companies that sell animal-derived products. property.4 Rather, welfarists argue that animals should Brian Sherman AM & Ondine Sherman be treated humanely within the existing paradigm of Estate Planning Managing Directors and Co-founders animal use.5 To this end, the primary goal of welfarists Helping with estate planning for pets. is to improve existing anti-cruelty legislation to and Family Law reduce unnecessary suffering. Katrina Sharman Assisting in pet custody disputes. Corporate Counsel 2. Animal rights law Freedom of Information Animal rights law seeks to question animals’ well- Accessing documents which may facilitate our entrenched status as property, with a view to securing understanding of the extent and manner in which fundamental rights for (at least some) animals. animals are suffering. 2. What are the Key Issues that “when it comes to farm animals, Animal Law Seeks to Address? it would seem that the very laws 2.1 Issues in Animal Law animals, it would seem that the very laws designed The following provides examples of some of the to prevent cruelty actively facilitate it. This is an area designed to prevent cruelty key issues in animal law; however, it is by no means where animal lawyers are seeking significant reform. exhaustive. More issues are addressed in the books Federal Model Codes of Practice for actively facilitate it. This is an and articles listed in section 5.4. Animal Welfare Animals As Property Although all Australian states and territories have area where animal lawyers are The law’s relegation of animals to the category of anti-cruelty statutes, these afford little protection to property is arguably a key issue in their abuse and farm animals for a number of reasons, including the seeking significant reform.” exploitation. As such, many animal lawyers argue that operation of Codes of Practice (‘Codes’). Many animal animals should be given legal personhood. Personhood advocates have identified that the Codes: for animals is not impossible; legal persons do not • entrench factory farming standards for raising and have to be human.7 Furthermore, the fact that animals keeping livestock; and are already regarded as property would not prevent place on private property away from the public eye.15 • sanction many cruel practices involving the Live Animal Export them being reclassified. Slaves used to be regarded as Most anti-cruelty statutes require an inspector to mutilation of farm animals, such as teeth clipping Over the last 30 years, millions of animals have been property but have since gained personhood.8 Some believe on reasonable grounds that a cruelty offence of pigs, de-horning of cows and beak trimming sent from Australia on ships to be slaughtered in animal lawyers argue that such a step is necessary for is occurring before they can enter premises.16 of chickens. other parts of the world.23 So far more than two animals as ‘personhood is the legal shield that protects As Kotzman points out, it is hard to satisfy this million animals have died en route24 due to the against human tyranny; without it, one is helpless’.9 The Codes function as significant exceptions to requirement unless a whistleblower or trespasser is conditions they are exposed to. On arrival, those that animal welfare legislation, as compliance with a Code involved.17 Consequently, gross cruelty can remain Animals used in Agriculture do survive may experience substantial suffering as of Practice may operate as a defence to a cruelty undetected and unpunished. In recognition of this, many of the importing countries do not have animal Factory Farming 13 prosecution. This means farm animals are afforded some jurisdictions give inspectors a power welfare legislation.25 In Australia close to half a billion animals are less legal protection than companion animals through to routinely inspect commercial premises.18 confined in intensive or ‘factory farms’10 where a process of institutionalised cruelty. However, the effectiveness of such provisions is It has been argued that the Australian Standards for they are routinely mutilated and denied the ability limited by the fact that inspectors are generally the Export of Livestock do little to help these animals to perform many of their natural behaviours. The The Codes are currently under review due to concerns required to give reasonable notice before an as they are frequently not complied with, cannot law condones this institutionalised abuse by classing about their different legal status in each jurisdiction. inspection is to take place.19 influence what happens to animals in importing animals as property and by failing to provide adequate Animal Health Australia, an initiative of federal, state and countries, and effectively institutionalise cruelty.26 Labelling of Animal-Derived protection through existing anti-cruelty statutes. In territory governments and major livestock industries, Accordingly, some animal protectionists have Food Products NSW, for example, s 9 of the Prevention of Cruelty to has been charged with updating and converting the facilitated cruelty complaints against live exporters 14 Animals Act 1979 (NSW) makes it an offence to not Codes into Welfare Standards and Guidelines. This It is not mandatory for animal products to be labelled and are petitioning for a national ban.27 provide an animal with adequate exercise. However, process, which is expected to take a few years to by production system, except in the case of eggs in 20 Intensive Livestock Production and animals such as cattle, sheep, goats, deer, pigs and complete, is intended to harmonise state and territory the ACT and Tasmania. This presents problems for Climate Change poultry (known as ‘stock animals’) are expressly animal welfare laws and increase compliance. It is consumers wishing to make ethical choices about the exempt from this requirement.11 unclear whether the reforms will ultimately improve food they purchase; especially as many factory farmed The livestock sector contributes significantly to the lives of animals, as the lack of animal welfare input products carry slogans and images that arguably imply some of the more serious environmental problems, In addition, the fact that cruelty offences can only into the process may result in inadequate ‘minimum high welfare standards.21 including climate change. According to the UN Food be established where an act or omission was standards’ that entrench animal suffering. and Agriculture Organisation, animal production is unreasonable, unnecessary or unjustifiable12 serves as Some animal lawyers have sought to address existing presently responsible for 18% of all human-induced Gathering Evidence for a potential shield for factory farmers. The law often deficiencies in the legislation by initiating proceedings greenhouse gas emissions.28 Some animal advocates Cruelty Prosecutions deems cruel farming practices both reasonable and against companies whose labelling amounts to argue that ‘only a reduction in meat consumption necessary in order to provide people with cheap It is difficult to bring actions against factory farming misleading and deceptive conduct and by campaigning and intensive livestock production can effectively 22 animal food products. Thus, when it comes to farm operations as the majority of potential cruelty takes for law reform. address the issue of global warming and slow the pace of climate change’.29 Given the seeming Zoos with disease, hunted or caught in steel-jawed traps Traditional Hunting 40 resistance by farming industries to be part of an Although zoos claim that their primary aims are to in some jurisdictions. These actions often fall In Queensland, Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islanders 30 emissions trading scheme, it is likely that there conserve wildlife and educate the public, they are outside the scope of anti-cruelty legislation. Species who practice traditional hunting are exempt from will continue to be tension between the agriculture also arguably designed as a form of entertainment. deemed ‘pests’ may be specifically excluded from prosecutions for animal cruelty.51 Unfortunately, many sector and environmentalists. Lawyers have an important role to play in challenging the operation of the legislation, be the subject of a traditional hunting practices cause substantial pain and defence under the legislation, be regulated through a Animals used for Scientific Purposes the legitimacy of the importation of animals to zoos, suffering. Harpooned dugongs may struggle for 15 to campaigning for high welfare standards and promoting Code of Practice or their harm may be authorised by 20 minutes before they are pulled in and drowned.52 Many animals suffer abuse and exploitation in the 41 in situ conservation through strong environmental another Act. Many animal lawyers argue that non- Turtles, often kept alive until they are needed, may name of scientific ‘progress’. This is sanctioned by the protection laws. lethal methods of control, such as fertility control are have their flippers cut off to prevent escape or be law. As Sharman points out: 42 preferable to the cruelty inflicted by existing laws. flipped onto their backs, where they can be left to Pets Despite the increased availability of alternatives, laws and policies Fish and Crustaceans suffer for weeks.53 The legislative regimes in other continue to be used as shields by those who gas, burn, confine, Pet Custody Australian jurisdictions do not provide outright clone, infect, mutilate, force-feed, starve, poison and kill healthy The Commonwealth has no direct Constitutional 31 People are increasingly regarding their companion exemptions for traditional hunting; however, poor animals in nations everywhere. power to enact legislation on animal welfare. Thus, animals as valued members of the family. However, enforcement mechanisms mean people are rarely Australian legislation regulating the use of animals animal welfare is primarily regulated at the state the law considers them ‘mere chattels’ when it comes prosecuted for such cruel practices.54 Despite the in research conforms to the existing paradigm level. This raises issues as not all jurisdictions define to dividing property after relationship breakdowns.35 political sensitivity of this issue, it is one that animal that animal suffering is justified so long as it is the term ‘animals’ in the same way.43 Significantly, Since the ‘future care and welfare’ of a sentient advocates seek to address. not ‘unnecessary’. The concern for many animal the animal welfare statutes of Western Australia and creature is at stake, animal lawyers argue that treating advocates is that when weighing up the interests of a South Australia do not include fish in the definition Animal Welfare Legislation animals the same as any other piece of property is person versus a ‘thing’, any experiment can be made of ‘animals’.44 This is problematic as anatomical, simply inadequate.36 Cases addressing the issue of pet Differing Standards of Protection for to seem ‘necessary’. For example, the Australian Code physiological and behavioural studies show that fish custody have reached US courts but do not appear to Certain Animals of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific possess a similar ability to experience pain as many have developed in Australia at this stage.37 It could be argued that domestic animals receive the Purposes provides categories for ethics committees mammals.45 Crustaceans also receive inadequate most ‘protection’ under Australia’s animal welfare to assess whether an experiment is necessary. As protection as in some jurisdictions they are only Sale of Animals in Pet Shops legislation and that farm animals and ‘pest’ species Sharman notes, the categories ‘are so broad that it considered animals when kept at a place where food Pet shops that sell animals arguably perpetuate the are not so lucky. Although most of these animals is hard to think of an example of an experiment that is sold.46 view that animals are commodities with no interests are physically and emotionally complex beings with would not fall within them’.32 of their own. They encourage ‘impulse buying’, support Wild Animals a similar capacity to suffer and experience pain as Animals used for Entertainment ‘puppy farms’ and contribute to the number of Culling companion animals, economic imperatives have unwanted animals in shelters.38 The Mayor of Sydney, led parliaments to exempt them from some basic Circuses A number of Australia’s wild animals are subject to Clover Moore, recently introduced a Bill to prohibit protections. For example, in NSW it is legal to commercial culling operations, including our national Circus animals spend much of their lives travelling the sale of dogs and cats in NSW pet shops.39 While castrate young cattle, sheep, goats and pigs without icon, kangaroos. Commercial culling of macropods, in cramped conditions and can lawfully be subject to the Bill was ultimately defeated, it succeeded in raising anesthetic.55 This is an area of the law in need of including kangaroos, is governed by the National Code cruel training regimes to ensure performance on the community awareness about the suffering associated significant reform. of Practice for the Humane Shooting of Kangaroos and basis that such regimes are ‘necessary, reasonable and with pet overpopulation and mass breeding practices. Wallabies for Commercial Purposes justifiable’. Due to the suffering involved in animal Advocating for legislative reforms is an important step . Despite its title, Enforcement of Anti-Cruelty Statutes the Code clearly sanctions animal suffering. Section circuses numerous local councils in Australia have towards protecting companion animals. Although police have the power to enforce anti- 33 5, for example, provides that orphaned joeys must now banned them. There is scope for animal lawyers cruelty statutes, a considerable proportion of animal be slaughtered either by decapitation with a sharp to litigate against circus cruelty, petition for further ‘Pests’ law enforcement in Australia is carried out by the blade,47 a forceful blow to the skull48 or a shot to the bans Australia-wide and to support community groups Non-native or ‘pest’ species such as rabbits and RSPCA. This can be problematic as the RSPCA is a 34 brain or heart.49 Additionally, there are concerns that already involved in seeking to ban animal circuses. foxes are often killed using methods that would private organisation which some animal advocates the remote locations where ‘the slaughter takes place be considered inhumane if applied to dogs or cats. have argued is ‘largely unaccountable to the public and has made it virtually impossible to ensure effective For example, ‘pests’ may be poisoned, infected parliament’.56 It is under no statutory obligation to monitoring of animal welfare’.50 investigate or prosecute cruelty offences and cannot offenders found guilty before them.65 Animal lawyers It is difficult for animal protection groups and allow the importation of eight Asian elephants into be compelled to do so.57 Additionally, the RSPCA seek to address this issue by pushing for appropriate individuals to argue around this rule as the interest Australia to be kept at Taronga and Melbourne does not receive adequate funding to effectively carry penalties to reflect the fact that animals are sentient they wish to protect is not their own but that of zoos (‘the zoos’). They argued that the importation out its inspection and prosecution function, relying creatures and cruelty against them should be taken animals. In considering issues of standing, the High breached the Convention on International Trade in largely on charitable donations.58 This means it may be seriously. One group actively involved in this campaign Court case of Onus v Alcoa of Australia Ltd (1981) 149 Endangered Species and would be detrimental to the reluctant to readily pursue test cases.59 is BLEATS, a Brisbane-based group advocating tougher CLR 27, which addresses ‘special interests’ may also welfare of the elephants. sentences for animal cruelty.66 be instructive. Ultimately, more ‘creative’ lawyering is Another key body responsible for enforcing anti-cruelty Outcome needed to ensure that animal protectionists are able statutes is the Department of Primary Industries, or The Administrative Appeals Tribunal allowed the Standing to advocate for the interests of animals. its equivalent in each jurisdiction. Animal advocates Prosecutions Under Animal importation; however, it imposed numerous welfare have identified a potential conflict of interest with this Welfare Legislation Free Speech conditions not provided for in the original permit. Department as its main function is often to foster These included (but were not limited to) providing Any person can commence a prosecution for breach The ability of animal protection organisations and the growth of primary industries which is largely the elephants with more comfortable sleeping of a public interest law, provided there is no statutory individuals to speak out against animal cruelty is an incompatible with animal welfare.60 This has prompted quarters, removing electric shock wiring from prohibition.67 Thus, individuals in the ACT, the important element in lifting the veil of secrecy which some animal advocates to argue that the responsibility trees to allow the elephants to scratch and forage, Northern Territory, Queensland, South Australia and conceals how countless animals are lawfully treated. of enforcement should be given to an independent providing the elephants with resting mounds, mud Tasmania can commence cruelty proceedings under One potential threat to free speech is the emergence department.61 Until these issues are addressed, some wallows and adequate exercise and monitoring the their respective Acts.68 However, in NSW, Victoria and of strategic litigation against public participation lawyers have argued that a significant public interest elephants via closed circuit TV. The zoos were also Western Australia the right of individuals to initiate (SLAPP) suits. These may occur where proceedings are statute will continue to go largely un-enforced.62 required to give undertakings to the Minister to the private actions has been curtailed by legislation.69 In commenced against animal protectionists for speaking effect that they would comply with the conditions. ‘Unreasonable’, ‘Unnecessary’ and NSW, for example, individuals can only commence out about animal cruelty. The effect of a SLAPP suit is to ‘Unjustifiable’ Suffering proceedings with the permission of the Minister or ‘silence protest and financially penalise those subject to the Director-General of the Department of Primary it. It serves to tie up the time and money of those named, Fisheries Australian animal welfare legislation generally 72 Industries.70 This imposes a significant hurdle for distracting attention from their cause’. To date, only Nature Conservation Council of NSW Inc v Minister for prohibits the infliction of unreasonable, unnecessary one jurisdiction in Australia has introduced anti-SLAPP 63 animal protectionists, which is undesirable given the Environment and Water Resources (2007) 98 ALD 334, or unjustifiable pain and suffering on an animal. This 73 significant deficiencies in the current enforcement legislation. Some animal lawyers argue that similar law [2007] AATA 1876. raises the problem of determining what is reasonable, regime, outlined above. reforms are required in other states and territories. necessary and justifiable. As Sharman suggests: Facts 2.2 Examples of Animal Law Cases Is it necessary to castrate a stock animal without anaesthetic? Is it Common Law Rules of Standing The Nature Conservation Council of NSW (‘NCC’) necessary to use a pack of dogs to chase a rabbit down its warren Animal protectionists are often hindered by the The following list provides examples of animal sought review of the Minister’s decision to declare the before the warren is crushed by a bulldozer? Is it necessary to raise law cases in Australia and overseas. The list is not NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery an approved Wildlife billions of animals in unnatural, arguably painful conditions to achieve common law rules of standing. The current test of economies of scale?64 standing was articulated in Australian Conservation exhaustive but serves to highlight the diversity of Trade Operation under s 303FN of the Environment Foundation v Commonwealth of Australia (1980) 28 ALR issues that an animal lawyer might encounter. Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Animal lawyers have an important role to play 257.71 Here the court held that a person must have a The Act provides that the Minister must not approve in arguing that it is not reasonable, necessary Administrative Law special interest in the proceedings to have standing. a Wildlife Trade Operation unless satisfied that it will or justifiable for animals to suffer for human Gibbs J [at 270] described an interest as follows: Importation of zoo elephants not be detrimental to the survival of a taxon. The NCC convenience, profit or pleasure. Re The International Fund for Animal Welfare (Australia) argued that the fishery was detrimental to the survival An interest, for present purposes, does not mean a mere intellectual Pty Ltd and Ors v Minister for Environment and Heritage of the critically endangered grey nurse shark and Penalties or emotional concern. A person is not interested within the meaning of the rule, unless he is likely to gain some advantage, other than the and Ors [2006] AATA 94, 93 ALD 625 sought review of the conditions imposed on it. Cruelty offences against animals have often not been satisfaction of righting a wrong, upholding a principle or winning a treated with the seriousness that they deserve. As contest, if his action succeeds or to suffer some disadvantage, other Facts Outcome Seymour notes, despite shocking examples of wanton than a sense of grievance or a debt for costs, if his action fails. A The International Fund for Animal Welfare, Humane The Administrative Appeals Tribunal held that there cruelty and neglect, the courts have not imposed belief, however strongly felt, that the law generally, or a particular were many factors impacting on the survival of grey law, should be observed, or that conduct of a particular kind should Society International and RSPCA Australia challenged anywhere near the maximum penalties against be prevented, does not suffice to give its possessor locus standi. the Federal Environment Minister’s decision to nurse sharks and concluded that compared with other “orphaned joeys must be slaughtered either by decapitation with a sharp blade, a forceful blow to the skull or a shot to the
brain or heart.” factors the fishery was not so damaging as to warrant Facts changing the conditions imposed on it. The decision of The defendant was charged with an aggravated cruelty the Minister was therefore affirmed. offence towards a cow under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW). This issue was whether Kangaroo Culling mens rea was an element of the offence. Animal Liberation v Conservator of Flora and Fauna [2009] ACAT 17 Outcome Dowd J held that the offence was one of strict liability. Facts That is, it did not require mens rea to be proven but Animal Liberation sought review of the Conservator’s the defence of honest and reasonable mistake of fact decision to allow the Department of Defence to kill was available. 7000 eastern grey kangaroos on land occupied by the Department. Animal Liberation argued that the Mens Rea Conservator had failed to take into account relevant Pearson v Janlin Circuses Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 1118 considerations regarding the threat posed by the Facts kangaroos and the carrying capacity of the land and Animal Liberation took action against Stardust Circus had taken irrelevant considerations into account on in relation to the treatment of their elephant, Arna. 10 these issues. Animal Liberation further argued that Arna had been kept by the circus for a number of any decision regarding culling should be postponed years without any contact with other elephants. In until a public consultation process regarding the ACT 2000 the circus authorised three elephants to be kept Kangaroo Management Plan was completed. in close proximity to her for a number of hours. The Outcome elephants were then removed. The Tribunal affirmed the Conservator’s decision to Animal Liberation argued that as a result of this act allow the culling. The Tribunal held that overgrazing by Arna was unreasonably, unnecessarily or unjustifiably kangaroos had caused severe damage to endangered abused, tormented, infuriated or inflicted with pain in ecological communities and the habitat of threatened contravention of s 5(2) of the Prevention of Cruelty to species within the contested area [at 115]. The Tribunal Animals Act 1979 (NSW). At first instance the magistrate concluded that the number of kangaroos had increased dismissed the proceedings on the basis that mens rea beyond the carrying capacity of the area and further was not established. Animal Liberation appealed. culling was ‘the only practical option to restore a better balance between the kangaroo population and the Outcome ecology of the area’ [at 117]. The Tribunal noted that Windeyer J of the NSW Supreme Court followed there was a significant degree of urgency in the case and Bell v Gunter and held that mens rea was not an it would therefore be ‘inappropriate to delay a decision element of the offence; rather the offence was one of until preparation of the ACT Kangaroo Management strict liability. His Honour ordered the matter to be Plan has been finalised’ [at 121]. reheard according to law. However, upon rehearing Animal Welfare Laws the case was dismissed. See: www.animal-lib.org.au for further details. Mens Rea Bell v Gunter (unreported judgment of the Supreme Court of NSW, 24 October 1997, BC 9708066) “... former High Court Judge, The Honourable Michael Kirby AC CMG, launched Australia’s first animal law textbook: Animal Law Facts Facts in Australasia: A New Dialogue. Emanuel Exports were prosecuted for three counts of Mr Hahnheuser fed ham to a group of sheep in an cruelty to animals. The prosecution arose from their attempt to prevent their live export to the Middle This book is a testament to the business of exporting live sheep to the Middle East. It East. The ham made the sheep unacceptable to was argued that the way the sheep were transported Muslim countries which require halal slaughter. Civil continued growth of the animal and confined caused unnecessary harm. proceedings were brought against Mr Hahnheuser under s 45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) Outcome (‘TPA’) for hindering trade. law movement and its popularity Magistrate Crawford found that the cruelty charges relating to transport were proven. However, Outcome among students, academics Her Honour held that there was an operational Section 45DD(3)(a) of the TPA provides a defence to inconsistency between the Animal Welfare Act 2002 hindering trade if it is for the dominant purpose of (WA) and Commonwealth legislation regulating live ‘environmental protection’. Gray J of the Federal Court and practitioners.” export. She concluded that the Act was invalid to held that the defence was made out, stating [at 64] that: the extent of the inconsistency and accordingly the Farm animals are as much a part of the environment as are accused were acquitted. wild animals, feral animals and domestic animals. There is no reason 11 why the protection of the conditions in which farm 12 Standing Standing Note: Initially authorities were reluctant to investigate animals are kept should be excluded from the concept of Animal Liberation Ltd v National Parks and Wildlife Animal Liberation Ltd v Director-General, Department of Animals Australia’s cruelty complaint. Consequently, environmental protection. Service [2003] NSWSC 457 Environment & Conservation [2007] NSWSC 221 the organisation filed a writ of mandamus against This interpretation was overruled on appeal. The full the Director-General of the Department of Local Facts Facts Federal Court found that the protection of sheep did Government and Regional Development which not amount to environmental protection (Rural Export Animal Liberation sought an injunction to restrain the This is a further case in which Animal Liberation prompted the Government to investigate. proposed aerial shooting of feral goats in a national park. sought an injunction to prevent the aerial shooting of & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2008] FCAFC The injunction was sought on the basis that the shooting goats and pigs in two nature reserves. After the judgment was handed down the Director- 156) and ordered the case to be reheard on the would cause cruelty to the animals and therefore breach General instructed the WA State Solicitor to lodge an question of damages. Outcome the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW). appeal on the grounds that the Magistrate made an In addition to expressing concerns about the On rehearing, Gray J held that Rural Export & Trading Animal Liberation argued that if the animals were shot error of law. However, the appeal was subsequently evidence relating to the likelihood of cruelty arising (who arranged for the transport of the sheep) were and not immediately killed, they would be left to suffer withdrawn under direction of the Minister for Local from the shoot, Hamilton J relied on the test of not entitled to damages as their trade was not for a protracted period before dying. Government (see article by Animals Australia at hindered by Mr Hahnheuser’s actions. While it was standing laid down in Australian Conservation Foundation www.liveexport-indefensible.com). Outcome v The Commonwealth (1980) 146 CLR 493 and held that accepted that they had to spend more money feeding Hamilton J ordered interlocutory relief, granting an Animal Liberation had no standing. It was not enough Civil Law the sheep for a longer period, this did not satisfy the test for a substantial hindrance of trade or commerce. injunction restraining the cull for a period of four to that they were concerned for the welfare of the Trade Practices Act, Part IV Restrictive six weeks pending His Honour’s request for further animals. To establish standing Animal Liberation needed Trade Practices Furthermore, Rural Export & Trading were not information from both parties. The National Parks and to show that they would be personally advantaged or Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser involved in trade or commerce ‘involving the Wildlife Service did not contest the plaintiff’s standing. disadvantaged by the outcome of the case. [2007] FCA 1535 movement of goods between Australia and places Note: Animal Liberation subsequently withdrew Live Export Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser outside Australia’ (s 45DB(1)). They were only [2008] FCAFC 156 involved in matters antecedent to this. Thus, they did its application because of legal cost limitations and Department of Local Government and Regional Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser not fall within the section [at 14-15]. the absence of witnesses; however it independently Development v Emanuel Exports Pty Ltd & Ors (Perth 74 [2009] FCA 678 managed to negotiate conditions for the culling. Magistrates Court, 8 February 2008) However, Samex (the exporter) were entitled to damages as they had purchased sheep for export and This judgment can be accessed at www.liveexport- were unable to export them due to Mr Hahnheuser’s indefensible.com/facts/case.php actions. Mr Hahnheuser was ordered to pay Defamation, Nuisance and Freedom Gummow and Hayne JJ [at 105] held that broadcasting At first instance the Magistrate found in favour of damages exceeding $72,000. This covered the cost of Political Communication the tape would not infringe any legal or equitable right; the activists on the basis that they had a reasonable of purchasing the sheep and having them processed while Kirby J concluded [at 220] that proper weight excuse to enter the premises. Animal Liberation (Vic) Inc v Gasser [1991] 1 VR 51 into meat products when they could no longer be had not been given to the appellant’s constitutional Outcome exported, less the proceeds of the sale of the meat. Facts freedom of political communication. Importantly, for On appeal, Gallop, O’Loughlin and Finn of the Federal Mr Hahnheuser was also ordered to pay Samex’s Animal Liberation conducted demonstrations the animal protection movement, Kirby J [at 217] Court held [at 120] that reasonableness must be court costs. outside a circus to protest against the use of animals. acknowledged that animal welfare issues are legitimate determined objectively, with reference to community They also published materials highlighting the alleged matters of public debate in Australia. Note: Mr Hahnheuser was also charged with criminal standards. They held that the activists entered the cruelty the circus inflicted on animals. The circus offences under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) which premises for the dominant purpose of advancing their commenced proceedings in defamation and nuisance. Freedom of Political Communication provided that it was an offence to contaminate cause against battery hen farming. They concluded It was granted an injunction to prevent the Levy v State of Victoria (1997) 189 CLR 579 goods with the intent to cause economic loss. Mr that this did not qualify as a reasonable excuse, as to protests and publication of such material. Animal Hahnheuser argued that his intention was to prevent Facts find otherwise ‘would mean that any dissident might Liberation appealed. animal suffering not to cause economic loss. He was Levy, an animal protection activist, entered a duck- be at liberty to enter his or her opponents’ premises cleared by a jury in the Geelong County Court.75 Outcome shooting area to be filmed protesting about duck in pursuit of a cause’ [at 122]. The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the shooting and collecting and rendering veterinary In response the Victorian Parliament amended the injunction against publishing the material could not assistance to injured birds. Charged with entering a Environmental Law 13 Crimes Act to make it an offence to recklessly cause 14 stand as appropriate weight had not been given to hunting area under the Wildlife (Game) (Hunting Season) Whaling economic loss. This amendment makes it easier for Animal Liberation’s right to free speech, or ‘to the Regulations 1994 (Vic), he commenced proceedings Humane Society Inc v Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd [2008] activists like Mr Hahnheuser to be convicted.76 importance to the community of exposing acts of alleging that the regulations were invalid because they FCA 3 Trade Practices Act, Part IV Restrictive cruelty to animals’ [at 56]. interfered with his constitutionally protected freedom Facts Trade Practices of political communication. The court overturned the injunction that prevented Humane Society International sought an injunction Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA Animal Liberation from performing demonstrations Outcome against the Japanese whaling company, Kyodo Senpaku 290, 22 March 2005 on the basis that it was too uncertain. However, the The High Court found that the graphic televised Kaisha Ltd, to prevent it hunting whales in the Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk (No 2) [2005] court granted a more specific injunction to curtail the images that Levy had hoped to present were within Australian Whale Sanctuary. FCA 1307 (16 September 2005) demonstrations as it found their intimidating nature the constitutionally protected realm of political Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk (No 3) [2005] amounted to the tort of nuisance. communication. However, applying the test of validity Outcome FCA 1308 (16 September 2005) from Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) Allsop J of the Australian Federal Court granted the Constitutional Law 145 ALR 96, the court held that the regulation was injunction on the basis that the whaling breached Facts Freedom of Political Communication valid as it was appropriate and adapted to serving the sections of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats legitimate end of enhancing public safety. commenced a campaign to boycott Australian wool [2001] HCA 63 due to the Australian wool industry’s continued use of Criminal Law Note: Despite the outcome, whaling is still continuing in the Australian Whale Sanctuary as the Federal the practice of mulesing. Australian Wool Innovation Facts Trespass Ltd initiated proceedings against PETA for hindering Government has refused to enforce the court order Animal protection activists broke into a brush-tail Mark, Stoner, Setter and Pearson v Henshaw (1998) 155 trade in contravention of s 45D and 45DB of the (see article by the Human Society International at possum processing facility and filmed the stunning and ALR 118 www.hsi.org.au/index.php?catID=336). Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). killing of possums. The ABC intended to broadcast the footage. The Supreme Court granted an interlocutory Facts Outcome International Cases injunction to prevent the broadcast. The ABC Animal activists entered a battery hen facility in the The case was never tried on the merits as it was Animal Welfare Laws appealed to the High Court. ACT to provide the hens with medical assistance and settled out of court. generate publicity. They chained themselves to the Legality of Foie Gras Production Outcome cages and called the police to investigate allegations of ‘Noah’ (The Israeli Federation of Animal Protection The injunction was set aside. Gaudron [at 61] and cruelty. They were prosecuted for trespass. Organisations) v The Attorney General, The Minister for Agriculture, The Egg and Poultry Board, Moshe Benishty conditions under which veal calves were raised, and 31 Colleagues, (Supreme Court of Israel, August including being confined in small, dark pens and “The High Court held that the 2003.) (‘Israeli Foie Gras Case’). being fed iron-deficient diets to induce anemia. They further argued that consumers should be warned Available at www.animallaw.info/policy/ graphic televised images that that the veal might be unhealthy as it comes from poisraelmaterials.htm calves that are fed antibiotics sub-therapeutically. Levy had hoped to present Facts Outcome An Israeli animal protection group challenged a The court held that consumer protection legislation regulation which controlled the force-feeding of geese were within the constitutionally was not the appropriate mechanism to deal with on the basis that it breached clause 2(a) of the Animal cruelty to animals, as it does not create a private right Welfare (Animal Protection) Law 1994 which provided protected realm of political to enforce anti-cruelty statutes. The court suggested that ‘no one shall torture an animal, treat it cruelly or the ADLF should instead concentrate on urging abuse it in any manner’. public officials and designated animal protection communication.” Outcome organisations to take proper action. The majority found that there is a distinction between The court further held that it was the intention of 15 basic foods and delicacies according to their necessity. 16 federal legislation to ‘occupy the field’ on antibiotic Outcome 1. Battery cages It was held that there was no proportionality between regulation. They concluded that since federal The Californian Court of Appeal affirmed the trial Justice Bell found the severe restriction of the harm inflicted on the geese and the purpose of legislation does not require meat to contain a warning court’s decision that public entities, including the movement imposed on hens in battery cages as that harm. After careful analysis of animal protection about sub-therapeutic antibiotic use, the ALDF could California Milk Producers Advisory Board, are not well as calcium deficiency resulting in osteopaenia philosophies and legislation, the Supreme Court of not use consumer protection legislation to impose a ‘persons’ who can be sued under the UCL. This to be cruel. Israel held, by majority, that the regulation did not requirement additional to the federal requirements. decision was reached through a process of statutory 2. Broiler (meat) chickens comply with the statute. Accordingly, the court held construction and the merits of the lawsuit were Justice Bell found the following practices in relation that the regulation was annulled and the practice of False and Deceptive Advertising (USA) never addressed. force-feeding of geese was to be phased out. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc v California to broiler chickens to be cruel: Milk Producers Advisory Board (2005) 125 Cal.App. 4th Defamation Note: Subsequent attempts by the Ministry of - The severe space restrictions that broiler chickens 871, (‘Happy Cows Case’) Animal Cruelty Claims and Agriculture to alter this decision were unsuccessful are subject to in their last few days of life; Defamation (UK) (see article by CHAI: Concern for Helping Animals in Information about the case, including appeal - The fact that some broilers are still fully McDonald’s Corporation and McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd Israel at www.chai-online.org/en/compassion/foiegras/ documents, can be obtained at www.unhappycows.com conscious when they have their throats cut; food_foiegras.htm). v Steel and Morris [1997] EWHC QB 366. (‘McLibel’) - Restricting broiler breeders’ feed, with the result Facts Available at www.mcspotlight.org/case/index.html that they go hungry; Consumer Protection People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (‘PETA’) - Leg problems in broilers bred for weight; Facts Unfair and Deceptive Conduct (USA) sued the California Milk Producers Advisory Board, - Rough-handling of broilers taken for slaughter; McDonald’s sued two individuals for defamation in Animal Legal Defense Fund Boston Inc v Provimi Veal claiming that their ‘happy cows’ advertising campaign and relation to a number of claims published in a leaflet Corporation breached California’s Unfair Competition Law (‘UCL’) - Pre-stun electric shocks suffered by broilers on (1986) 626 F. Supp. 278 they distributed. The leaflet suggested that McDonald’s as it was false and deceptive. The advertisements the way to slaughter. supported cruel farming practices. Facts featured cows grazing on spacious, grassy pastures and The Animal Legal Defense Fund (‘ALDF’) brought 3. Sow stalls had the slogan ‘Great cheese comes from happy cows. Outcome Justice Bell found the restriction of movement an action against the Provimi Veal Corporation Happy cows come from California’. PETA argued that Justice Bell held that a number of the farming practices imposed on pregnant pigs (sows) in stalls to under a Massachusetts consumer protection statute. in contrast, most of California’s dairy cows are kept in McDonald’s supported were cruel. These included: The ALDF argued that Provimi Veal acted unfairly conditions materially different from those depicted in be cruel. and deceptively by not alerting consumers to the the advertisements. These findings were upheld on appeal. 3. What is the State of the 3.3 Courses in Animal Law Animal Law Movement? The following Universities offer or have offered an animal law course. • Brisbane Lawyers Educating and Advocating for 3.1 The Movement Australia Cornell University (New York) Tougher Sentences (BLEATS) The animal law movement is growing rapidly both Australian National University (ACT) DePaul University (Illinois) • Pro Bono Animal Law Service or PALS@PILCH in Australia and overseas. Due to the educational Bond University (QLD) Duke University (North Carolina) (a national organisation with offices in NSW and awareness raising initiatives of groups such as Flinders University (SA) Emory University (Georgia) and Victoria) Voiceless, there are now nine Australian universities Griffith University (QLD) Florida Coastal School of Law (Florida) that offer, or which have offered, a course in Animal United States of America Southern Cross University (NSW) Florida State University (Florida) Law, and more than 120 universities internationally National University of Melbourne (VIC) Fordham University (New York) who offer the course.77 Prominent legal organisations • American Bar Association, Torts, Trial & Insurance University of NSW (NSW) George Mason University (Virginia) have been established in Australia that deal Practice Section (TIPS) Animal Law Committee University of Sydney (NSW) George Washington University (Washington DC) specifically with animal law issues, including the • Animal Legal Defense Fund University of Wollongong (NSW) Georgetown University (Washington DC) Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, Lawyers for Animals, • Animal Legal and Historical Webcenter Canada Golden Gate University (California) NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee and • Centre for Animal Law Studies Dalhousie University (Nova Scotia) Gonzaga University (Washington) Brisbane Lawyers Educating and Advocating for • Centre for Wildlife Law Tougher Sentences. In the United States there are McGill University (Quebec) Hamline University (Minnesota) • Humane Society (HSUS) (Animal Protection at least 30 barrister groups that focus exclusively University of Alberta (Alberta) Harvard Law School (Massachusetts) Litigation Section) on animal protection.78 Additionally, there are now University of Ottawa (Ontario) Hastings College of the Law (California) 17 • International Institute for Animal Law 18 five international journals and one Australian journal University of Quebec (Quebec) Hofstra University (New York) dedicated to animal law. State University of Toronto (Ontario) Indiana University (Indiana) • Arizona Bar Animal Law Section University of Victoria (British Columbia) The John Marshall Law School (Illinois) A key indicator of the growth of animal law in • Connecticut Bar Animal Law Section New Zealand Lewis & Clark Law School (Oregon) Australia in recent years has been the continued • Florida Bar Animal Law Committee Massey University (Manawatu-Wanganui) Loyola Law School (California) expansion and success of Voiceless’s annual • Animal Law Bar Section Georgia University of Auckland (Auckland) Loyola University New Orleans School of Law (Louisiana) Animal Law Lecture Series. The Series, which ran • Indiana State Bar Association Animal University of Canterbury (Canterbury) Marquette University (Wisconsin) for the third year in May 2009, features a leading Law Committee United States of America79 Massachusetts School of Law (Massachusetts) international animal law scholar or practitioner who • Louisiana State Bar Animal Law Section American University (Washington DC) participates in a series of lectures at law schools, Mercer University (Georgia) • Massachusetts Bar Association’s Animal Law law firms and professional associations across the Arizona State University (Arizona) Michigan State University Detroit College Practice Group of the Law (Michigan) country. As part of the 2009 lecture series, former Barry University (Florida) • Maryland State Bar Animal Law Section New England School of Law (Massachusetts) High Court judge, The Honourable Michael Kirby AC Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law (New York) • Massachusetts State Bar Animal Law Section New York Law School (New York) CMG, launched Australia’s first animal law textbook: Boston College Law School (Massachusetts) • State Bar of Michigan Animal Law Section Animal Law in Australasia: A New Dialogue. This book is Boston University (Massachusetts) New York University (New York) • Animal Law Section of the Minnesota State a testament to the continued growth of the animal Brooklyn Law School (New York) Northeastern University (Massachusetts) Bar Association law movement and its popularity among students, California Western School of Law (California) Northwestern University (Illinois) • Missouri Bar Animal Law Committee academics and practitioners. Case Western Reserve University (Ohio) Nova Southeastern University (Florida) • New Jersey State Bar Association Animal Chapman University (California) Pace University (New York) Law Committee 3.2 Legal Organisations Focusing on Pennsylvania State University (Pennsylvania) • New York State Bar Association Special Chicago-Kent College of Law (Illinois) Animal Protection Issues Pepperdine University (California) Committee on Animals and the Law Cleveland Marshall College of Law (Ohio) Australia Quinnipiac University (Connecticut) • Oregon Animal Law Section Columbia Law School (New York) • Voiceless, the animal protection institute Rutgers University (New Jersey) • Pennsylvania Bar Animal Law Committee • Barristers Animal Welfare Panel • Texas Bar Animal Law Section • Animal Welfare Community Legal Centre (Tasmania) • Washington Bar Animal Law Section • NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee • Lawyers For Animals 3.2 Continued
Regional of this approach and then moves to providing Santa Barbara and Ventura Colleges of Law (California) University of New Mexico (New Mexico) • Chicago Bar Association Animal Law Committee an overview of the moral and ethical arguments Santa Clara University (California) University of Oregon (Oregon) • Animal Law Committee of the Cuyahoga supporting an animal protection position and Seattle University (Washington) University of the Pacific, McGeorge School County Bar the case for animal rights. The focus of the unit South Texas College of Law (Texas) of Law (California) • Houston Bar Association Animal Law Section is on the regulatory frameworks which apply to Southern Methodist University School of Law (Texas) University of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania) • Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association Animal interactions between humans and animals, both University of Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Southern New England School of Law (Massachusetts) Law Committee domesticated and wild. The following topics will University of San Diego (California) Southwestern University (California) • Los Angeles County Bar Association Animal be considered: animal welfare legislation and University of San Francisco (California) St. Thomas University (Florida) Issues Committee its enforcement; issues of standing; the role of University of Tennessee (Tennessee) Stanford University (California) • Nassau County Bar Association Animal Law Task agricultural codes of practice; wildlife conservation; Stetson University (Florida) University of Texas (Texas) • Association of the Bar of the City of New York, international law issues including whaling and free Suffolk University (Massachusetts) University of Virginia (Virginia) Committee on Legal Issues Pertaining to Animals trade constraints on improved standards for animal Temple University (Pennsylvania) University of Washington (Washington) • San Diego County Bar Association Animal welfare; trade in endangered species and the role Texas Wesleyan University (Texas) University of Wisconsin (Wisconsin) Law Section of zoos; the use of animals in research (including Thomas Goode Jones School of Law (Alabama) Valparaiso University (Indiana) • San Francisco County Bar Association Animal the responsibilities of institutions and animal ethics Thomas Jefferson School of Law (California) Vanderbilt University (Tennessee) Law Committee committees); regulation of companion animals; and 19 Thomas M. Cooley Law School (Michigan) Vermont Law School (Vermont) • St. Louis Bar Animal Law Committee current issues in animal law, such as live export. 20 Villanova University (Pennsylvania) • Suffolk County Bar Association Animal Law Committee Tulane University (Louisiana) Source: Sydney University, Animal Law
Joana Fuller, Adelaide-based barrister with an Ben Johns, Operations Manager, RSPCA (SA) Inc. interest in animal law and a specialization in criminal law. Previously represented Animal Liberation in Jed Goodfellow, Prosecutions Officer, RSPCA criminal and civil proceedings. (SA) Inc.
Tracy-Lynne Geysen, principal lawyer, TLG Lawyers - Family and Animal Law.
John Mancy, Sydney-based barrister who edits the Australian Animal Law Protection Journal and has run cases in Animal Law.
Graeme McEwen, Melbourne-based barrister and Chair of the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel.
Paul O’Donnell, Sydney-based barrister with an interest in animal law and a specialization in criminal law. Regularly assists RSPCA NSW with cruelty prosecutions.
Graeme Page SC, Brisbane-based barrister and Honorary Patron of Brisbane Lawyers Educating and Advocating for Tougher Sentences (BLEATS). 4. How can I become more involved in the animal law movement? There are many ways for students, practitioners, 4.4. Write an article on animal law 4.7. Advocate for more vegetarian with their organisation. In addition to the increasing law firms, law schools and academics to become Writing an article on animal law is a great way to and vegan food options at your number of animal law conferences being arranged in more involved in the animal law movement. Ten easy voice your opinion on a topic that concerns you. university or workplace Australia, you may also consider attending an overseas suggestions are provided below. conference to gain a different perspective and learn You can submit your article to one of the animal A powerful way to say no to animal cruelty is to about litigation and law reform strategies that might 4.1. Join Voiceless Law Talk law journals listed in section 3.6 for publication. reduce the amount of animal products in your be applied domestically. Alternatively, try a journal that specialises in your diet. You can assist others to make this choice by A great way to learn more about animal law and keep topic area. For example, a criminal law journal would advocating for more vegetarian and vegan food abreast of recent developments is to join Voiceless Law 4.10. Speak out about animal law be suitable for articles on animal cruelty, while a options at university or work functions, law society Talk. This is an online forum which allows members to There are many opportunities to let politicians and family law journal would be ideal for articles on pet meetings, food outlets, conferences and events. discuss and find out about animal law cases, legislation, the public know about the treatment of animals custody disputes. philosophy, events, competitions, courses and much 4.8. Volunteer your services to an and the problems with existing laws. Write a letter more. To register simply visit: www.voiceless.org. Sample topic ideas can be found on the Voiceless animal protection group to your local, state or federal MP expressing your au/Law/Law_Talk/Register_and_Log-in.html concerns about an animal law issue. Put together a website: www.voiceless.org.au/Law/Law_Students/ Many animal protection groups accept volunteers or Animal_Law_Essay_Ideas.html petition demanding better treatment of animals. Send 4.2. Join or establish an animal interns. If you are a law student at the University of in a submission to an animal law inquiry. Contact a law group New South Wales or the University of Melbourne you 4.5. Enter, establish or sponsor an newspaper or radio station to voice your concerns can apply to intern at Voiceless and receive course Joining an animal law group is a fantastic way to meet animal law competition about the treatment of animals. Initiate an education 25 credit through your university’s internship scheme. 26 other animal advocates, learn more about animal A great way for law firms and law schools to become campaign at your university or workplace. Voiceless also accepts legal volunteers from other law law and start putting theory into practice. A list of more involved in animal law is to establish or schools. Positions are usually advertised on Voiceless animal law groups can be found in section 3.2 of this sponsor an animal law competition, such as a moot, These are just some of the ways you can become Law Talk. There are also many other animal protection document. If there is no group in your area consider witness examination or negotiation competition. For more involved in the animal law movement. For more groups that accept volunteers. See the list of animal establishing one at your university or within your budding writers, the NSW Young Lawyers Animal ideas visit the Voiceless website: www.voiceless.org.au protection groups in section 5.3 and visit their State or Territory Law Society or Bar Association. Law Committee already holds an annual animal law websites for more information. essay competition. To enter visit: www.lawsociety. 4.3. Study or teach animal law com.au/about/YoungLawyers/Committees/AnimalLaw/ If you work at a large or middle-sized law firm you Taking a course in animal law is one of the best AnimalLawEssayCompetition/index.htm may be able to become involved in animal law through ways to gain knowledge and skills in this area. A list your law firms’ pro bono scheme. Let your pro bono of universities that offer or have offered a course 4.6. Run an animal co-ordinator know that this is an area that interests in animal law can be found in section 3.3 of this protection campaign you. Alternatively, you may wish to offer your services document. If your university does not offer an animal Select an issue that is of particular concern to you to the Animal Welfare Community Legal Centre, the law course you may wish to request them to do and run a campaign to foster change within your local Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre’s Animal so. A sample petition can be found in section 5.5. community, workplace or university, or on a larger Law Project or PALS@PILCH. For more information Further information about requesting an animal law scale. More than 300 universities in the United States visit the Voiceless website: www.voiceless.org.au/Law/ course can be found on the Voiceless website: www. no longer serve cage eggs as a result of the ‘cage-free Misc/Legal_Advice.html voiceless.org.au/Law/Law_Students/Request_Animal_ campus’ campaign run by students. There are many Law.html opportunities to push for law reform, changes in 4.9. Attend, host, sponsor or speak at consumer behaviour and changes in peoples’ attitudes an animal law conference If you are a legal academic or practitioner consider in Australia. Attending an animal law conference is a great way teaching a course in animal law. With the growth in the to find out about the latest issues and progress in animal law movement, animal law lecturers will be an Further information about cage-free campus initiatives animal law. Law firms and law schools can play an asset to any law school. can be found on the Voiceless website: www.voiceless. important role by hosting or sponsoring such events. org.au/Education/ex-VAA/_Cage-Free_Campaign.html Academics, practitioners and students can become more involved by speaking at conferences or helping 5. Additional Reading and Resources 5.1 Australian Legislation Tasmania The following table provides a non-exhaustive list of Animal Welfare Act 1993 (TAS) relevant Australian animal law Acts. Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 (TAS) Nature Conservation Act 2002 (TAS) Readers are encouraged to verify the currency of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1970 (TAS) Acts listed and consider relevant Regulations. Victoria New South Wales Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (VIC) Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (NSW) Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) Wildlife Act 1975 (VIC) Animal Research Act 1985 (NSW) Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) Western Australia Exhibited Animals Protection Act 1986 (NSW) Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) Game and Feral Animal Control Act 2002 (NSW) Dog Act 1976 (WA) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 (NSW) Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) Rural Lands Protection Act 1989 (NSW) Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA) Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (NSW) 27 Commonwealth Australian Capital Territory Australian Meat and Livestock Industry Act 1997 (CTH) Animal Welfare Act 1992 (ACT) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Domestic Animals Act 2000 (ACT) 1999 (CTH) Pest Plants and Animals Act 2005 (ACT) Export Control Act 1982 (CTH) Nature Conservation Act 1980 (ACT) 5.2 Federal Model Codes of Practice Northern Territory for Animal Welfare Animal Welfare Act (NT) The following codes are available for download from Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1977 (NT) the CSIRO publishing website (www.publish.csiro. Queensland au/nid/22/sid/11.htm) Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Exotic Diseases in Animals Act 1981 (QLD) Animals at Saleyards (1991) Primary Industries Racing Act 2002 (QLD) Report Series 31 Stock Act 1915 (QLD) DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Fauna Conservation Act 1974 (QLD) Cattle 2nd ed. (2006) Primary Industries Report Series 85 Nature Conservation Act 1992 (QLD) DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: South Australia Domestic Poultry 4th ed. (2002) Primary Industries Report Series 83 Animal Welfare Act 1985 (SA) National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Wilderness Protection 1992 (SA) Farmed Buffalo (1995) Primary Industries Report Series 52 DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Farming of Ostriches (2003) Primary Industries Report Series 84 DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: 5.3 Websites of Australian Animal World Society for the Protection Winders, Delcianna J, ‘Confronting Barriers to the Feral Livestock Animals (1992) Primary Industries Protection Groups of Animals Courtroom for Animal Advocates’ (2006) 13(1) Report Series 34 www.wspa.org.au Animal Law 1. Animal Liberation (ACT) DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: www.al-act.org 5.4 Books and Journal Articles Animals in Agriculture Husbandry of Captive-Bred Emus 2nd ed. (2006) Primary Animal Liberation (NSW) Industries Report Series 90 The following table provides a non-exhaustive list Akers, Keith and Bagaric Mirko, ‘No Absence of Malice www.animal-lib.org.au of relevant books and journal articles. Book titles Towards the Gallus’ (2001) 18(5) Environmental and DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Animal Liberation (QLD) appear in bold and publications are categorised by Planning Law Journal 505. Intensive Husbandry of Rabbits (1991) Primary Industries www.animalliberationqld.org.au subject matter. Report Series 33 Caulfield, Malcolm, ‘The Law and Pig Farming’ Animal Liberation (SA) DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Text Books (Summer 2007/08) 91 Reform 25. www.animalliberation.org.au Land Transport of Cattle (2000) Primary Industries Bryant, Taimie L; Huss, Rebecca J and Cassuto, David Animal Liberation (VIC) Ibrahim, Darian M, ‘A Return to Descartes: Property, Report Series 77 N, (eds), Animal Law and the Courts: A Reader www.alv.org.au Profit, and the Corporate Ownership of Animals’ DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: (Thomson, 2008). Animal Welfare Community Legal Centre (2007) 70 Law and Contemporary Problems 87. Land Transport of Horses (1997) Primary Industries www.animalwelfareclc.org.au Favre, David S, Animal Law: Welfare, Interests Report Series 62 Pearson, Alan; Plowman, Kathleen and Topfer, John, Animal Welfare League and Rights (2008, Aspen Publishers Inc). 29 DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: ‘Animals and the Law in Australia: A Livestock 30 www.animalwelfareleague.com.au Land Transport of Pigs (1998) Primary Industries Frasch, Pamela D; Waisman, Sonia S and Wagman, Industry Perspective’ (Summer 2007/08) 91 Reform 25. Animals Australia Bruce A, Animal Law (4th edition, 2009, Carolina Report Series 63 Sharman, Katrina, ‘Lifting the Veil of Secrecy on www.animalsaustralia.org Academic Press). DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Animal-Derived Food Products’ (Summer 2007/08) 91 Brisbane Lawyers Educating and Land Transport of Poultry 2nd ed. (2006) Primary Gandhi, Maneka; Husain, Ozair and Panjwani, Raj, Reform 40. Advocating for Tougher Sentences Industries Report Series 91 Animal Laws of India (3rd edition, 2006, Universal www.bleats.com.au Wolfson, David, ‘McLibel’(1999) 5 Animal Law 121. DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Law Publishing Co. Pty Ltd). Livestock at Slaughtering Establishments (2001) Primary Humane Society International Animals in Entertainment Industries Report Series 79 www.hsi.org.au Sankoff, Peter and White, Steven, Animal Law Allars, Margaret, ‘To Breed or To Exhibit: The Asian International Fund for Animal Welfare in Australasia: A New Dialogue (2009, The DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Elephants Case and Reasons For Regulatory Failure’ www.ifaw.org Federation Press). Pigs 3rd ed. (2008) Primary Industries Report Series 92 (2007) 24(5) Environmental and Planning Law Journal 329. DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Lawyers for Animals Sunstein, CR and Nussbaum, MC (eds), Animal The Camel 2nd ed. (2006) Primary Industries Report www.lawyersforanimals.org.au Rights: Current Debates and New Directions, Animal Experimentation Series 86 NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law (2004, Oxford University Press) Dandie, Geoff, ‘Research, Animal Biotechnology and Regulation in Australia’ (2008) 16(8) Australian Health DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: Committee Access to Justice Law Bulletin 129. The Farming of Deer (1991) Primary Industries Report www.lawsociety.com.au/page.asp?partid=6153 Nussbaum, Martha C, Frontiers of Justice: Series 30 RSPCA Australia Donnellan, Laura, ‘Animal Testing in Cosmetics: Recent Disability, Nationality, Species Membership DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: www.rspca.org.au Developments in the European Union and the United (2006, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press). The Goat (1991) Primary Industries Report Series 32 Barristers Animal Welfare Panel States’ (2007) 13(2) Animal Law 251. DAFF, Model Code of Practice for the Welfare of Animals: www.vicbar.com.au/e.1.12.asp Pollard, Ruth, ‘Animals, Guardianship and the Local Gjerris, Mickey and Sandoe, Peter, ‘Ethical Perspectives The Sheep 2nd ed. (2006) Primary Industries Report Voiceless, the animal protection institute Courts: Towards a Practical Model For Advocacy’ in Animal Biotechnology’ (Summer 2007/08) 91 Series 89 www.voiceless.org.au (Summer 2007/08) 91 Reform 48. Reform 37. DAFF, Model National Guidelines for Beef Cattle Feedlots Wires Seymour, George, ‘Animals and the Law: Towards a Kramer, Marcia Goodman, ‘Humane Education, in Australia 2nd ed. (1997) Primary Industries Report www.wires.org.au Guardianship Model’ (2004) 29(4) Alternative Law Dissection, and the Law’ (2007) 13(2) Animal Law 281. Series 47 Journal 183. LaFrance, Arthur Birmingham, ‘Animal Wise, Steven M, Rattling the Cage: Toward Legal Dillard, Carter, ‘False Advertising, Animals, and Ethical Philosophy Animal Law Experimentation: Lessons from Human Rights For Animals (2000, Perseus Publishing). Consumption’ (2004) 10 25. Cavalieri, Paola and Singer, Peter (eds), The Great Ape Experimentation’ (2007) 14(1) Animal Law 29. Wise, Steven M, Drawing the Line: Science and the Favre, David, ‘Integrating Animal Interests into Our Project: Equality Beyond Humanity (1993, St Martins Press). Animal Law Ludlow, Karinne, ‘A Clone with Your Fries? The Case for Animal Rights (2002, Perseus Publishing). Legal System’ (2004) 10 87. Gaard, Greta ‘Vegetarian Ecofeminism: A Review Essay’ Regulation of Cloned Farm Animals in Australia’ (2006) Wise, Steven M, An American Trilogy: Death, Hughes, Elaine L and Meyer, Christiane, ‘Animal Welfare (2002) 23(3) Frontiers 117. 23(3) Environmental and Planning Law Journal 185. Animal Law Slavery, and Dominion on the Banks of the Law in Canada and Europe’ (2000) 6 23. Kalof, Linda and Fitzgerald, Amy (eds), The Animals Sharman, Katrina, ‘Opening the Laboratory Door: Cape Fear River (2009, Da Capo Press). Kim, Rakhyun E, ‘Dog Meat in Korea: A Socio-Legal Reader: The Essential Classical and Contemporary Writings National and International Legal Responsibilities for the Wise, Steven M, ‘The Basic Rights of Some Non- Challenge’ (2007) 14(2) Animal Law 201. (2007, Berg Publishers). Use of Animals in Scientific Research - An Australian Human Animals Under the Common Law’ (Summer Perspective’ (2006) 2 Journal of Animal Law 67. Linzey, Andrew, ‘The Ethical Case for European Regan, Tom, The Case for Animal Rights (1988, Routledge). 2007/08) 91 Reform 11. Animal Animal Rights Legislation Against Fur Farming’ (2006) 13(1) Singer, Peter, Animal Liberation (1995, Pimlico). Animal Welfare Laws Law 147. Bagaric, M, ‘Humanising Animals - Civilising People’ Caulfield, Malcolm, Handbook of Australian Animal Singer, Peter and Regan, Tom (eds), Animal Rights and (2008) 4(1) Original Law Review 1. Linzey, Andrew, ‘Ethical Critique of the Canadian Seal Cruelty Law (2008, Animals Australia). Human Obligations (1989, Prentice Hall). Hunt and an Examination of the Case for Import 31 Bartlett, Steven J, ‘Roots of Human Resistance to 32 Jamieson, P, ‘The Legal Status of Animals Under Animal Controls on Seal Products’ (2006) 2 Journal of Animal Pet Custody Animal Rights: Psychological and Conceptual Blocks’ Welfare Law’ (1992) 9 Environmental and Planning Law Law 87. Bogdanoski, Tony, ‘The Marriage of Family Law and (2002) 8 Animal Law 143. Journal 20. Animal Rights: How Should Australian Family Law McNabb, Megan, ‘Pets in the Eye of the Storm: Donovan, Nichola, ‘Is Common Law the Key to Approach the Rise of ‘Pet Custody’ Disputes?’ (2006) Sankoff, Peter, ‘Flawed Logic Impedes Animal Welfare Hurricane Katrina Floods the Courts with Pet Upholding an Animal’s Right Not to Suffer?’ (Summer 31(4) Alternative Law Journal 216. Act Sentencing’ (2004) New Zealand Law Journal 357. Custody Disputes’ (2007) 14(1) Animal Law 79. 2007/08) 91 Reform 43. Newell, Barbara, ‘Animal Custody Disputes: Sharman, Katrina, ‘Sentencing Under Our Anti-Cruelty Nattrass, Kate M, ‘“Und Die Tiere” Constitutional Francione, Gary L, Animals, Property, and the A Growing Crack in the “Legal Thinghood” of Statutes: Why Our Leniency Will Come Back to Bite Protection for Germany’s Animals’ (2004) 10 Animal Law (1995, Temple University Press). Nonhuman Animals’ (2000) 6 Animal Law 179. Us’ (2002) 13(3) Current Issues In Criminal Justice 333. Law 283. Francione, Gary L, Rain Without Thunder: The Stroh, Heidi, ‘Puppy Love: Providing for the Legal White, Steven, ‘Legislating For Animal Welfare: Sankoff, Peter, ‘Five Years of the “New” Animal Welfare Ideology of the Animal Rights Movement Protection of Animals When Their Owners Get Making the Interests of Animals Count’ (2003) 28(6) Regime: Lessons Learned from New Zealand’s (1996, Temple University Press). Divorced’ (2007) 2 Journal of Animal Law and Ethics 231. Alternative Law Journal 277. Decision to Modernise Its Animal Welfare Legislation’ Francione, Gary L, Introduction to Animal (2005) 11 Animal Law 7. Property Status of Animals Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (2000, Temple International Perspectives Sharma, Charu, ‘Chinese Endangered Species at the Bearup, Brooke J, ‘Pets: Property and the Paradigm of University Press). Adam, Rachelle, ‘The Japanese Dolphin Hunts: In Brink of Extinction: A Critical Look at the Current Protection’ (2007) 3 Journal of Animal Law 173. Quest of International Legal Protection for Small Law and Policy in China’ (2005) 11 Animal Law 215. Hilden, Julie, ‘Contractarian View of Animal Rights: Cetaceans’ (2007) 14(2) Animal Law 133. Francione, Gary L, Animals, Property, and the Insuring against the Possibility of Being a Non-Human Smith, Rob Roy, ‘At a Complex Crossroads: Animal Law (1995, Temple University Press). Animal’ (2007) 14(1) Animal Law 5. Araújo, Fernando, ‘Recent Development of Portuguese Law in Indian Country’ (2007) 14(1) Animal Law 109. Law in the Field of Animal Rights’ (2005) 1 Journal of Nosworthy, Jane, ‘The Koko Dilemma: A Challenge to Regan, Tom, ‘The Day May Come: Legal Rights for Animal Law 61. Stevenson, Peter, ‘The World Trade Organization Legal Personality’ (1998) 2 Southern Cross University Animals’ (2004) 10 Animal Law 11. Rules: A Legal Analysis of their Adverse Impact on Law Review 1. Cook, Kristin, ‘Inhumanity of Foie Gras Production Animal Welfare’ (2002) 8 Animal Law 107. Wise, Steven M, ‘Dismantling the Barriers to Legal - Perhaps California and Chicago Have the Right Idea’ Rights for Nonhuman Animals’ (2001) 7 Animal Law 9. (2007) 2 Journal of Animal Law and Ethics 263. Striwing, Helena, ‘Animal Law and Animal Rights on the Move in Sweden’ (2002) 8 Animal Law 93. 5.5 Sample Petition St.Pierre, Derek W, ‘The Transition From Property White, Steven, ‘The Emergence of Animal Law in Support for Adding an Animal Law tort, criminal, property, family, administrative and to People: The Road to the Recognition of Rights for Australian Universities’ (Summer 2007/08) 91 Course to The Law School Curriculum constitutional law. Examples of such intersection Non-Human Animals’ (1998) 9 Hastings Women’s Law Reform 51. include pet custody disputes, criminal proceedings We, the undersigned, are writing to request Journal 255. for animal cruelty, veterinary malpractice suits, Sankoff, Peter ‘Charting the Growth of Animal Law in the addition of an animal law course to the law housing disputes involving ‘no pets’ policies and Wise, Steven, M ‘The Entitlement of Chimpanzees to Education’ (2008) 4 Journal of Animal Law 105. school curriculum. constitutional cases involving activists’ rights to free the Common Law Writs of Habeas Corpus and De Animal law is a cutting edge area of law that looks speech. As students seeking academic excellence Homine Replegiando’ (2007) 37 Golden Gate University Wild Animals at the treatment of non-human animals in our legal and leadership opportunities, we seek to engage in Law Review 219. McEwen, Graeme, ‘The Challenge Posed by Feral system. It covers a variety of issues relating to the informed discussion and debate about these issues. Animals’ (Summer 2007/08) 91 Reform 30. treatment of animals in society, drawing on legislation The Animal Law Movement We are hopeful that you will provide students with Shah, Anuj and Miller, Alyce, ‘Invented Cages: The Plight and case law. Most animal law courses draw upon Bryant, Taimie L, ‘Trauma, Law and Advocacy for the opportunity to learn more about animal law of Wild Animals in Captivity’ (2005) 1 Journal of Animal student’s existing knowledge of administrative law, Animals’ (2006) Journal of Animal Law and Ethics 61. by developing an animal law course. The law school Law 23. contract law, tort law and property ownership, and law students – including animal advocates, the Cao, Deborah, Animal Law in the West (2007, although philosophical and ethical questions relating Thiriet, Dominique, ‘In the Spotlight: The Welfare of philosophical, the curious, the indifferent and the The China Law Press). to the treatment of animals in society may also dissenters - would greatly benefit from a thought- Introduced Wild Animals in Australia’ (2007) 24(6) be explored. Animal law is becoming increasingly provoking forum in which to debate the issues. Former 33 Favre, David, ‘The Gathering Momentum’ (2005) 1 Environmental and Planning Law Journal 417. popular amongst students and would be a welcome 34 High Court Judge, The Honourable Michael Kirby AC Journal of Animal Law 1. addition to the law school curriculum. Thiriet, Dominique, ‘Out of the ‘Too Hard Basket’: CMG, recently remarked: ‘If only the people knew the Frasch, Pamela D, ‘Finding our Voice: Challenges and Traditional Hunting and Animal Welfare’ (2007) 24(1) Animal law is currently being taught (or has been pain, the unkindness, the cruelty that is done to sentient Opportunities for the Animal Law Community’ (2007) Environmental and Planning Law Journal 59. taught) at both undergraduate and graduate level by animals I think they would demand action’.83 14(1) Animal Law 1. nine Australian universities, including the University of Thiriet, Dominique, ‘Traditional Hunting: Cultural We would value the opportunity to learn more Sydney, the University of Melbourne, the University Glasgow, David, ‘The Law of the Jungle: Advocating Rights v Animal Welfare’ (2006) 31(2) Alternative Law about animal law so we can take action. Thank you of New South Wales and the Australian National For Animals in Australia (2008) 13(1) Deakin Law Journal 57. for your time and for considering this request. University. Animal law is also offered by more than Review 181. Thiriet, Dominique, ‘Tradition and Change – Avenues 130 universities internationally, including the highly Sincerely, Katz, Richard J; Blumm, Michael C and Gibbons, Holly for Improving Animal Welfare in Indigenous Hunting’ regarded Harvard, Boalt, Duke and Stanford Law Anne, ‘Origins of Animal Law: Three Perspectives’ (2004) 11 James Cook University Law Review 159. Schools. The discipline is becoming so popular that The Undersigned. (2004) 10 Animal Law 1. Australia’s first journal dedicated to animal law was launched in 2008, followed by the release of Australia’s Ogle, Greg ‘Beating a SLAPP Suit’ (2007) 32(2) first animal law textbook in 2009. Alternative Law Journal 71. Additionally, prominent legal organisations have been Pacelle, Wayne, ‘Law and Public Policy: Future established to focus on animal law including the Directions for the Animal Protection Movement’ Barristers Animal Welfare Panel, Lawyers for Animals, (2005) 11 Animal Law 1. the NSW Young Lawyers Animal Law Committee and Sharman, Katrina, ‘An Emerging Field’ (2006) 31(4) the Animal Welfare Community Legal Centre. The Alternative Law Journal 227. President of the Australian Law Reform Commission, David Weisbrot AM, summed up animal law when Sherman, Brian, ‘Animal law: Peering Over the Gap he described it as ‘potentially the next great social or Daring to Close It?’ (2006) 31(4) Alternative Law justice movement’.82 Journal 226. As this movement grows it is increasingly intersecting with traditional areas of law such as “For a long time it was left to two groups to speak up in defence of animals: on the one hand, philosophers; on the other hand, animal welfare people and animal activists. Now, in the last few years, it has been heartening to see a third group enter the fray: lawyers. There has been a blossoming of conferences and symposia on the place of animals in our legal systems, courses on animal rights at law schools, books and articles everywhere. Philosophers are full of ideas,
35 activists full of energy. Lawyers add a third necessary quality. They are astute, good at working out where in practice to apply ideas for maximum effect. Together thinkers, lawyers and activists make a good team.
“Voiceless, through its legal component, has been at the forefront in the struggle to advance animal rights in Australia. The way has not been easy and will perhaps get even more difficult. The animal exploitation industries have huge resources behind them, and have the ear of government. But it is impossible to believe that, in the end, justice and compassion will not triumph.”
This piece was written by Voiceless’s patron J. M. Coetzee and spoken by Hugo Weaving at the 2007 Voiceless Awards Event on 3 December 2007. Endnotes
1 David Weisbrot, ‘Comment’ (2007/08) 91 Reform 1, 2. 23 Animals Australia, Live Animal Exports: The Issues
• From Paddocks to Prisons – an analysis of farming practises relating to pigs in New South Wales, Australia (December 2005);
• From Label to Liable: Scams, Scandals and Secrecy – lifting the veil of secrecy surrounding animal-derived food product labelling in Australia (May 2007); and
• From Nest to Nugget: an exposé of Australia’s chicken factories (November 2008).
This project has been supported by a small grant from the Victoria Law Foundation – www.victorialawfoundation.org.au
Printed on Tudor RP, a 100% recycled Australian made paper.
With grateful thanks to Art and Australia for their support of this publication