He was detained for being drunk and disorderly and later arrested on suspicion of a causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal. We have often discussed how such horrific acts are often treated relatively lightly under criminal codes — particularly given the belief that someone capable of such cruelty to animals is likely a danger to society at large.
The question is whether inebriation is a defense to the crime. The government site states “Under section 4(1) of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, it is a summary offence to cause unnecessary suffering to a protected animal or if being responsible for a protected animal to permit any unnecessary suffering to be caused to any such animal (Stones 8-1571).” That sounds like a strict liability offense, but perhaps our English readers can tell us if there are defenses or whether there is a true scienter requirement of intent that may be denied by a defendant due to inebriation.
Here is the actual code language:
Unnecessary suffering
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(2)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he is responsible for an animal,
(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,
(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and
(d)the suffering is unnecessary.
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include—
(a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced;
(b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment;
(c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as—
(i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or
(ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal;
(d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned;
(e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person.
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner.
This notably includes the element that he “knew, or ought reasonably to have know” about the quality of his act. That does not offer much for the defense, even if he could show that he was completely without any judgment or responsibility (often a weak claim in the best of circumstances).
What do your think the appropriate sentence should be if he is found guilty?
Source: AU News