McKee eventually decapitated the goat using what appeared to be a blunt knife. Three shorter clips posted on Manukau’s page sequenced the demise of a brown goat, initially grabbed by the leg by his adult dog Prime with McKee in pursuit.
McKee drags the goat by its horns to Manukau, who drags it along a track by its openly fractured leg. McKee set his three young dogs on to the goat, encouraging them to maul it about the face and head until it appears dead or at least unresponsive through shock.
Judge Down said the case was not a simple one. The law surrounding it was complicated; the facts were complex and emotive. It required careful consideration and the need to put aside any sympathy for the animals and prejudice towards the defendants for their actions.
He rejected the defence run by counsel Heather Vaughn and Bryony Shackell (for McKee) and Tony Robinson (for Manukau), who said the men’s actions — no matter how misguided or inexperienced — were hunting as defined by the Act. They were protected from prosecution under Section 175 of the Act, which was law at the time of the offences (2013) but had been repealed in May.
The section broadly allowed exemption from prosecution from any other provisions within the Act for anyone who was legitimately hunting or killing a wild animal in a wild state by any means.
McKee was training his dogs to hunt, Ms Vaughan and Ms Shackell said. Mr Robinson said Manukau was further protected from an alternatively laid charge — of encouraging, aiding or assisting in the baiting of the goat by encouraging dogs to attack it — because he had done nothing more than act as a videographer.
'Hunting'His dog Prime had been involved only in the part of the incident on which all expert witnesses had agreed was “hunting”.
In reaching his decision, Judge Down said he relied, as did prosecution and defence, on the findings of Justice Williams in one of the few cases pertinent to this trial — that of Marlborough man Jemaal Large who clubbed to death 23 protected seals with a steel pipe at Kaikoura in 2010.
But unlike that offender, McKee and Manukau did not appear to have acted “with gratuitous violence for the sake of it".
Their behaviour had been more like over-zealous hunters being carried away in the moment, Judge Down said.
That said, their actions — based on case law and section 175 — could not properly fit the definition of hunting as intended by the Act.
Judge Down agreed with prosecutor Leighvi Maynard that Section 175 was never intended to provide an open-slather approach to hunting or a carte blanche exemption from prosecution under the Act.
Limits under legislation“Even under that old legislation, which must apply, there are limits — you cannot just say well it’s hunting, I can do all we like,” Judge Down said.
Section 75 was more intended to provide relief in situations that could amount to extreme economic and social consequences — for instance if a fisherman had difficulty catching quota.
Three expert witnesses on hunting called during the trial – including one called by the defence — agreed the proper way to train a young hunting dog was to immediately take it to the bailed or held animal, then dispatch the animal as quickly as possible thereafter.
McKee and Manukau had not done that in relation to either goat.
They were not members of hunting clubs and claimed they were not aware of proper training techniques or codes of conduct. But, nonetheless, the Act itself — even in the full title of it — suggested an obligation on hunters to carry out activities humanely.
Ignorance of the law was no excuse and this case was a prime example of that well-known saying, Judge Down said.
The remorse shown by McKee when interviewed by the SPCA was genuine and justified, and a proper acceptance of the law, the judge said.
“The suffering of the white goat (restrained by McKee) was clear for all to see and the evidence of the veterinary expert as to the heavily-innervated (highly sensitive) nature of goats’ faces underlined for me the dreadful pain and suffering it must have experienced,” Judge Down said.
He rejected “resoundingly” Mr Robinson’s submission that Manukau was not involved in the actual offending.
It was clear by his use of the word “we” throughout his interview with the SPCA that he was part of the so-called dog training.
Manukau acted callously when he pulled the brown goat by its clearly broken leg and continuing to film the gruesome scene thereafter.
