ABSTRACT
Media portrayals of animal cruelty can shape public understanding and perception of animal welfare law. Given that animal welfare law in Australia is guided partially by 'community expectations', the media might indirectly be influencing recent reform efforts to amend maximum penalties in Australia, through guiding and shaping public opinion. This paper reports on Australian news articles which refer to penalties for animal cruelty published between 1 June 2019 and 1 December 2019. Using the electronic database Newsbank, a total of 71 news articles were included for thematic analysis. Three contrasting themes were identified: (1) laws are not good enough; (2) laws are improving; and (3) reforms are unnecessary. We propose a penalty reform cycle to represent the relationship between themes one and two, and 'community expectations'. The cycle is as follows: media reports on recent amendments imply that 'laws are improving' (theme two). Due to a range of inherent factors in the criminal justice system, harsher sentences are not handed down by the courts, resulting in media report of 'lenient sentencing' (theme one). Hence, the public become displeased with the penal system, forming the 'community expectations', which then fuel future reform efforts. Thus, the cycle continues.
ABSTRACT
The state-based approach to regulating animal welfare in Australia is thought to create national dis-uniformity in that each state and territory legislates and operates inconsistently. The animal welfare legal framework in each of the eight Australian jurisdictions is made up of a primary statute and subordinate legislation, where subordinate animal welfare legislation, in the forms of regulations and codes of practices, are lower-ranking laws that are given power under the jurisdiction's specific animal welfare statute. Since a review of animal welfare statutes identified broad patterns between the jurisdictions, this study is intended to be complementary by collating the subordinate legislation to provide a more comprehensive understanding of animal welfare laws in Australia. Using targeted search strategies stemming from the eight enabling animal welfare statutes, this study identified 201 pieces of subordinate legislation in force between 28 March 2022 and 5 April 2022. The scope of subordinate legislation is depicted through the following utility categories of animals: companion, production, wild/exotic, entertainment. Whilst subordinate legislation differed between the jurisdictions, it was common for similar welfare concerns or topic areas to be protected in higher-order legislation (statutes or regulations). Additionally, many jurisdictions were found to have similar shortcomings, all which likely could be managed through a mechanism of national data collection.
ABSTRACT
Animal welfare is not included in the Australian Constitution, rendering it a residual power of the states and territories. Commentators have suggested that inconsistencies exist between the state and territory statutes, and that a uniform approach would be beneficial. However, there has been no comprehensive assessment of the nature or extent of these purported inconsistencies. This review addresses this gap by providing a state-by-state comparison of animal protection statutes based on key provisions. Utilizing systematic review methodology, every current Australian statute with an enforceable protection provision relating to animal welfare was identified. A total of 436 statutes were examined, with 42 statutes being included in the detailed analysis. The comparison showed that animal protection laws are generally consistent between each Australian jurisdiction and were found to have similar shortcomings, notably including lack of a consistent definition of 'animal' and reliance on forms of legal punishment to promote animal welfare which have questionable effectiveness. It is argued that there is a need for attention to definitions of key terms and future consideration of alternative forms of penalties, but that a uniform federal approach may not be necessary to address these shortcomings.
ABSTRACT
Previous research has identified a number of issues arising at all stages of the animal law enforcement process. These issues contribute to an enforcement gap between the written law, as it relates to the penalties laid out in statutes, and the reality of the animal law justice system. This paper identifies and investigates the contributors to this gap. The identified factors discussed are (1) the role of the public in reporting animal cruelty, (2) the ambiguity of the language used in animal welfare legislation, (3) the nature of enforcement authorities, and (4) the role of the courts. Thus, the causes of the enforcement gap are multifactorial, derived from all stages of the enforcement process. Further research on the enforcement model and public education, in addition to debate on legislative reforms, will be needed to address this gap.
ABSTRACT
Animal welfare legislation in South Australia underwent amendments in 2008, where all the maximum penalties for animal welfare offences were doubled. This commitment to increased penalties arguably provides evidence of the legislature's intent with respect to penalties. Studies have speculated that the legislative intent behind the increased penalties is not being reflected in the courts. This interdisciplinary research sought to gain evidence to confirm or disprove these speculations, by quantifying the average custodial sentence and monetary fine handed down in court before and after the 2008 amendments. Furthermore, trends relating to the species of animal affected and the demographics of the offender were identified. A total of 314 RSPCA (SA) closed case files from 2006 to 2018 were converted into an electronic form. Since the amendments, the average penalties have doubled in magnitude; fines have increased from $700 to $1535, while prison sentences have increased from 37 days to 77 days. Cases of companion animal abuse were most common (75% of all cases) and the location of the offence was found to influence offending. These findings suggest that the 2008 amendments have caused the average penalties to increase. However, it is debatable whether these increases are enough to effectively punish animal abusers.
