Earlier this month, the long-awaited verdict was announced in the matter of Department of Local Government and Regional Development (WA) v Emanuel Exports et al. The trial involved allegations that Emanuel and its directors breached the Animal Welfare Act 2002 (WA) by exporting live sheep in a way that caused them unnecessary harm.

The Magistrate found that the export of sheep in the circumstances of the case constituted a clear breach of the Act; however as the export was permitted under Commonwealth law, the relevant provisions of the Act were rendered inoperative or invalid under s109 of the Constitution. The Defendants were subsequently acquitted. This is a remarkable finding insofar as it confirms that Australia's Commonwealth laws legalise cruelty. To find out more about the case, login to Voiceless Law Talk. To learn about the live export trade, visit the 'Handle with Care' website.

Ref: Department of Local Government and Regional Development (WA) v Emanuel Exports et al (Magistrates Court of Western Australia [Criminal Jurisdiction], 8 February 2008)

In October this year, following a donation of $1m from an anonymous benefactor, Against Animal Cruelty Tasmania launched the Animal Justice Fund (AJF).  The AJF will cover legal fees for the prosecution, under Tasmanian animal welfare legislation, of people or businesses who commit crimes against animals. The focus of the AJF will be on protecting animals used in factory farming and prosecuting those who abuse animals in pursuit of commercial or recreational purposes. The AJF is proposing to reward up to $25,000 to members of the public who provide information that leads to the successful prosecution of offenders of animal cruelty.

For further details and information, please follow this link to the Animal Justice Fund website.

A recent Federal Court decision has held that an animal rights campaigner who fed a ham mixture to sheep bound for live export to the Middle East,  did not contravene s45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 as his conduct was substantially related to environmental protection and not industrial action. The case represents a resounding victory for Ralph Hahnhauser and Animal Liberation South Australia, who have been embroiled in related litigation since 2004.

In a groundbreaking decision for farm animal advocates, the Court held that the term ‘environmental protection’ covered sheep generally and that it was ‘… clear that the environment comprehends living things, including animals, and the conditions under which they live. No reason appears for drawing any distinction between animals that are bred to be farming stock, to be slaughtered for the production of food for humans, and other animals … There is no reason why the protection of the conditions in which farm animals are kept should be excluded from the concept of environmental protection.’

For further details on the case, please login to Voiceless Law Talk.

Australian taxpayers may be forced to foot the bill for legal action taken against those that speak out against animal suffering and other public interest matters, under legislation introduced to Parliament earlier this month.

The proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act which slipped through under the guise of small business reforms, empower Australia’s peak consumer protection body, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take representative action against groups that call for consumers not to buy products on ethical grounds. The Bill has been referred to the Senate Economics Committee for Inquiry and Report next month.

To read Voiceless’s press release on the Bill, please follow this link.
To read Voiceless’s submission on the Bill, follow this link.

Update: The 41st Parliament was prorogued at 12 noon on Monday, 15 October 2007. As the Bill did not receive Royal Assent by that stage, it lapsed. Voiceless will monitor whether the Bill is reintroduced when Parliament sits again in 2008.

Earlier this month, Oregon became the third US state to ban the keeping of pigs in sow stalls and the first to do so by way of state legislature. Sow stalls are already banned in Arizona and Florida following successful citizens' ballot initiatives. The Oregon ban, which provides for a six year phase out of sow stalls, appears to be part of a growing movement in the US away from the cruel and inhumane treatment of pigs in factory farms. This movement has been demonstrated by corporate leadership as well as legislative reform.

For further information about recent resolutions by major agribusinesses and pork retailers to cease supporting sow stalls, follow this link. To listen to a podcast of the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee considering Senate Bill 694 (which has now been passed), please follow this link to Lewis & Clerk Law School's website.