Brisbane Woman Banned From Owning Animals

[Maxiewolf]

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National/2...als_462107.html

A Brisbane woman has been fined $3000 and banned from owning an animal for three years for neglecting her dogs, the RSPCA says.

Sue-Ellen Hall, 36, from Petrie in Brisbane, was found guilty of three counts of breaching the duty of care for her three dogs.

Ms Hall's female boxer cross, Indy, was found to be severely emaciated, as were two other dogs following an RSPCA investigation.

She was fined $3000 for failing to provide food, water and adequate veterinary treatment for two dogs and a puppy.

RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the RSPCA was pleased with the outcome of the case.

'In view of the precedents that have come before, it is quite a good result because she has been banned from owning an animal for three years, so it is a good result for us,' Mr Beatty said.

'But when you take into account the maximum penalty for duty of care is $30,000 or one year's imprisonment, obviously, it is not a massive penalty. But in view of other precedents set, it is a good outcome.'

Mr Beatty said he hoped that prosecuting animal cruelty would deter people from harming animals.

'We believe that education and harsher penalties will bring about a change,' Mr Beatty said.

.... 3 years is still a pathetic ban if you ask me.

[GeckoTree]

3 grand and 3 years pathetic. But better than some who get away scott free.

someone on here now has the pup I think, at least thats what I figured when reading the thread on these dogs.

[old yeller]

she should be banned from keeping any animals ,

o y

[HollyMilo]

she should be banned from keeping any animals ,

o y

Ever.

[iffykharma]

An unbelievably inadequate sentence. Here's the forum topic relating to when the dog was found.

http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?showtopic=190463

And the article in the Courier Mail.

As one of the comments to this story says, if the Daughter is old enough to look after a cat, surely she should be held partially responsible for the condition the dogs were allowed to get into.

This sickens me.

Edited May 16, 2010 by iffykharma

[mita]

The comment is correct that this penalty is stronger than a number of cruelty cases that've been before the Qld courts. So it does mark a tiny bit of progress. There've been extremely disappointing penalties handed out in the past.

There's a group of Brisbane lawyers who lobby for cruelty cases to attract the full force of the law. BLEATS. I couldn't agree with them more!

http://www.bleats.com.au/

Edited May 16, 2010 by mita

[kyliegirl]

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/National/2...als_462107.html

A Brisbane woman has been fined $3000 and banned from owning an animal for three years for neglecting her dogs, the RSPCA says.

Sue-Ellen Hall, 36, from Petrie in Brisbane, was found guilty of three counts of breaching the duty of care for her three dogs.

Ms Hall's female boxer cross, Indy, was found to be severely emaciated, as were two other dogs following an RSPCA investigation.

She was fined $3000 for failing to provide food, water and adequate veterinary treatment for two dogs and a puppy.

RSPCA spokesman Michael Beatty said the RSPCA was pleased with the outcome of the case.

'In view of the precedents that have come before, it is quite a good result because she has been banned from owning an animal for three years, so it is a good result for us,' Mr Beatty said.

'But when you take into account the maximum penalty for duty of care is $30,000 or one year's imprisonment, obviously, it is not a massive penalty. But in view of other precedents set, it is a good outcome.'

Mr Beatty said he hoped that prosecuting animal cruelty would deter people from harming animals.

'We believe that education and harsher penalties will bring about a change,' Mr Beatty said.

If they want to really deter it they would start using the maximum penalty.

[mita]

If they want to really deter it they would start using the maximum penalty.

Who's 'they'? The penalty is decided by the magistrate who hears the case. And he/she has a maximum set down in law to decide within.

[ILK]

Maximum, Schmaximum, The law just never seems to give enough of a penalty to those who deserve it. It's a dam shame our criminals get away with as much as they do... Laws are for the innocent.

[-Megz-]

At least something is happening instead of NOTHING