SPCA wants animal killers put inside

By CATHERINE MASTERS

Some people are getting away with murder - not the murder of humans but of animals.

To Bob Kerridge, outspoken head of the Auckland SPCA, it is the same thing.

"The murder of an animal is no different to the murder of a person," he says. "And, as we say so often, the murder of an animal will lead someone on the path to murdering someone else.

"It's a crime, it's a hideous crime, and therefore it should be stopped there and then."

Mr Kerridge's problem is that the law sees it differently. In a number of cases this year people convicted of killing animals, often in the most shocking and sadistic ways, have been punished with community service.

He argues that the courts should treat cruelty to animals as seriously as cruelty to humans.

"The only way to get the message across is to inflict the strongest possible sentences. But on the whole people get away with horrendous acts of cruelty and neglect with community service and a fine."

The Animal Welfare Act allows fines of up to $25,000 for an individual and jail terms up to six months, and the SPCA is warranted by the Government to prosecute cases of animal cruelty.

But the cost is high and the society receives no Government funding; it must rely on donations and fundraising.

Acting chief executive Jenny Prattley says financial constraints limit the number of prosecutions.

Last year it received 11,541 complaints nationally but only 44 people were prosecuted.

That was down from the previous years when there were 11,785 complaints and 61 people prosecuted.

Ms Prattley said many complaints turned out to be unfounded or minor but - although the statistics did not distinguish between cruelty and neglect - it seemed that violence towards animals was getting worse.

To be prosecuted, a case had to be watertight, with witnesses or photographic evidence.

The number of prosecutions was to an extent limited by finance.

"But when I say it's limited by finance, it's no use spending a lot of money on a court case when you know you're not going to get anywhere."

Each case is prosecuted by one of the 53 SPCA organisations around the country, but many are small and struggle for money. A single case can cost thousands of dollars, and costs spiral if it goes to a jury trial.

Last month an Auckland man was charged when a cat died an agonising death after being put in a microwave. Another Aucklander is in court this month after a poodle was beaten, suffering a cracked rib, a broken pelvis and a burst blood vessel in an eye.

Those cases are still before the courts, but others have brought only fines and community service.

Mr Kerridge agrees that some people see a vast difference between crimes against humans and against animals, but he believes there are comparisons.

Like a child, animals feel pain and emotion and are just as defenceless.

"The motive for it, the violence inflicted, doesn't matter. It's somebody harming somebody else and if you can do it to an animal you can do it to anyone."

Late last year Judge Thomas Everitt sentenced two people in a dog-fighting case in Northland to fines and community service, saying: "It does not need to go as far as imprisonment.

"These are offences against animals and have to be put on a lesser level than offences against humans."

Mr Kerridge says this sends the wrong message, and attitudes from the Judiciary down have to change because people who maltreat animals are more likely to maltreat people.

Extensive research in America had linked serial killers such as Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer to animal abuse as children.

Auckland lawyer Steve Anderson has monitored sentencing and agrees with Mr Kerridge that it is too lenient and is sending the wrong message.

"I think there is a general feeling that it doesn't matter so much because it is an animal, and I think that attitude is still prevalent within the Judiciary."

A spokesman for the Judiciary, Neil Billington, said each judge looked at the case according to the facts and the law that would apply to the case.

There were options of appeal or review if sentences were thought to be too light, but otherwise it was a matter for policymakers.

HELPLESS VICTIMS ATTACKED

CASE 1: The body was dug from a shallow grave in urban Auckland.

It was a mature female, exact age unknown. The post mortem examination revealed she had many broken bones, injuries to her groin and bruising over most of her body.

The victim was not a human being but a rabbit which unwittingly hopped into the path of three teenage boys.

Bruce Wills, senior animal welfare inspector with the Auckland SPCA, said the youths tortured it over a prolonged period and continued to beat it when it was dead. The teenagers went through the Youth Justice system and Wills says he is satisfied at the outcome, but cannot reveal details.

CASE 2: Auckland woman Leeanne Franklin is still coming to terms with the killing of her dog Humphrey last year.

Humphrey was abducted in Te Atatu Peninsula and his bashed body found in the bathroom of the flat of student Zhenyue Wei.

Although the cross-bred terrier was registered and had his phone number on his tag, Wei kept him for weeks. Then in a fit of rage when Humphrey messed inside, Wei beat him and kicked him into a wall. Wei received 275 hours of community service and was ordered to pay $500 reparation.

CASE 3: A man in Rotorua swung his dog against a concrete wall and left it in a bath. The dog later died. The sentence: community service.

CASE 4: A man in Nelson beat his dog about the head with a hammer. The sentence: community service.

CASE 5: A man in Invercargill slams a cat on the ground and stamps on its head. The sentence: 200 hours community service.