Catriona MacLennan: Minimal penalties for animal cruelty

COMMENT

It is time for the courts to start treating animal cruelty seriously by sending perpetrators to jail.

The Government should play its part by providing adequate resources for investigations and prosecutions.

The outcome of a prosecution against a Northland couple convicted of involvement in dog-fighting is a severe disappointment and fails utterly to act as a deterrent.

Melissa Berryman and Johnson Murphy were convicted after a property search found nine severely underweight dogs. Eight were emaciated and seven had scarring consistent with dog-fighting.

One dog had a rotten jawbone and had to be destroyed. Another had broken teeth. SPCA inspectors found a dog-fighting pit, flooring and trailer, all blood-spattered.

Under the 1999 Animal Welfare Act, people convicted of involvement in animal fighting ventures face a maximum penalty of up to six months' jail and/or a fine of up to $25,000.

Failing to ensure animals receive treatment to alleviate pain carries with it the same penalties, and wilful ill-treatment has a maximum penalty of three years' jail and/or a fine of up to $50,000.

The pain and terror suffered by dogs forced to take part in fights for human entertainment is scarcely imaginable.

As long as we trivialise the suffering of certain groups by classing them as less worthy or significant, violence will continue to flourish. The penalties imposed by the courts should recognise that suffering.

Instead, Berryman and Murphy were sentenced to 200 hours of community service and $1000 costs, the dogs were forfeited and a three-year ban on owning or caring for animals was imposed.

This is little more than a rap on the knuckles and in no way reflects the pain of the animals or sends a message that cruelty to animals will not be tolerated.

Accordingly, the case unfortunately joins a lengthy list in which gross suffering by animals attracts minimal penalties.

Only one person has been imprisoned in New Zealand for a cruelty offence under the act - a Northland man who received one month's jail for biting off a kitten's head.

Particularly disturbing in the Berryman/Murphy case was Judge Thomas Everitt's comment that "these are offences against animals and have to be put on a lesser level than offences against humans".

Animals are living beings and experience pain and fear. Their vulnerability and the fact that they are so often at the mercy of humans should entitle them to more, rather than less, protection.

International research clearly demonstrates strong links between cruelty to animals, child abuse, and family violence.

New Zealand has a shocking record in all three fields and that will never change while our culture continues to accept, normalise and trivialise violence.

The attitude that "it's only a dog", "it's just a child" or "it's just a domestic" remains alive and well in many parts of New Zealand.

As long as we trivialise the suffering of certain groups by classing them as less worthy or significant, violence will continue to flourish.

The 2002 Sentencing Act sets out the purposes of sentencing and the principles to be applied in carrying it out.

Among the purposes listed are holding an offender accountable for harm, promoting a sense of responsibility in the offender, providing for the interests of the victim, denouncing the offender's conduct, and deterrence.

It is difficult to see how any of these purposes is served by the sentence handed down in the Berryman/Murphy case.

The principles of sentencing set out factors the court must take into account in sentencing.

In particular, a string of factors regarded as aggravating was present in this case, including the fact that the offence involved violence, the extent of harm resulting, particular cruelty, abuse of a position of trust, vulnerability of the victim and lack of remorse by the offender.

Judge Everitt is, however, to be commended for his remarks in relation to the unsatisfactory position concerning responsibility for investigation and prosecution of such offences.

Animal Welfare Act prosecutions may be taken by the SPCA, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, or the police.

All three agencies lack the resources to carry out the job properly.

The SPCA is a voluntary organisation, receiving no government funds and ineligible for grants such as Lotteries Commission funding.

The judge suggested that the police should investigate dog fighting, using undercover officers if necessary.

That proposal has some merits, but it is difficult to envisage a police force already stretched to the limit ever treating animal welfare as a priority.

The Government needs urgently to provide dedicated funding for animal welfare investigations and prosecutions so the act can be properly policed.

Judicial education is also required to make judges aware of the links between violence against animals and other forms of violence.

If resources are not going to be provided for enforcement, there is simply no point in passing legislation.

* Catriona MacLennan is an Auckland barrister.