Illegal Puppy Farmer Convicted

[Christina]

If the RSPCA have inspected them and found they were not guilty of animal cruelty they can hardly charge them.

It would be good if one day we can really talk about what is going on in the dog world and use cases like this to find solutions rather than have it beaten up - and get everyone mad and judging and yelling for a minute,demanding more laws and more regulations and wanting punishment handed out and taking us no where. Is the primary goal to stop dogs suffering or to punish and hate people for things the law says they are not guilty of?

One has to wonder then what is considered animal cruelty ? If the photos are genuine isn't it cruel to keep an animal in such terrible conditions ?

If they had to seize dogs & destroy dogs because they were in such bad physical condition isn't that cruelty to let them get to that state ?

Isn't breeding from dogs with hip displaysia, sick dogs, old dogs & dogs in bad physical condition cruel ?

Naturally people will yell, judge & get mad seeing those photos although I do agree that demanding more laws & regulations is useless. Maybe there needs to be more clarity in defining what cruelty actually is.

The law in this case is an ass & all the new laws & regulations clearly do not work in the animals favour.

[Steve]

How the f*** was that NOT animal cruelty? What the hell do the RSPCA think IS animal cruelty?

Thats the whole issue - the RSPCA cant put their own interpretation on things they can only work within the law - current animal cruelty laws.

Breaching codes isnt under the same legislation as prevention of cruelty laws. Best you will get is fines. There isn't any point in blaming the RSPCA .

These are issues we need to speak about and try to sort out solutions based on reality not perceptions and opinion. Everything that has gone before in Victoria is responsible for this - it has created more scoff laws and not saved any animal from suffering and we will see more and more unintended consequences.

[Steve]

If the RSPCA have inspected them and found they were not guilty of animal cruelty they can hardly charge them.

It would be good if one day we can really talk about what is going on in the dog world and use cases like this to find solutions rather than have it beaten up - and get everyone mad and judging and yelling for a minute,demanding more laws and more regulations and wanting punishment handed out and taking us no where. Is the primary goal to stop dogs suffering or to punish and hate people for things the law says they are not guilty of?

One has to wonder then what is considered animal cruelty ? If the photos are genuine isn't it cruel to keep an animal in such terrible conditions ?

If they had to seize dogs & destroy dogs because they were in such bad physical condition isn't that cruelty to let them get to that state ?

Isn't breeding from dogs with hip displaysia, sick dogs, old dogs & dogs in bad physical condition cruel ?

Naturally people will yell, judge & get mad seeing those photos although I do agree that demanding more laws & regulations is useless. Maybe there needs to be more clarity in defining what cruelty actually is.

The law in this case is an ass & all the new laws & regulations clearly do not work in the animals favour.

If the photos are genuine - it wouldnt be the first time the photos were not genuine . They were obtained illegally anyway but read the prevention of cruelty to animals laws and you will see having rotting whelping boxes etc is not against the law. They didnt sieze the dogs but he has moved some out because he had more than the numbers he was allowed and until recently he was a Vicdogs member and scoring and screening and there is no evidence that council or RSPCA saw any such animals that are being discussed in poor condition or sick etc.

[Diana R]

If an AMO is also an authorised officer under POCTA, then council can prosecute for cruelty offences under that Act. Not sure if that's the case here though.

I understood the statement issued by council to mean that they dropped a number of charges related to the conditions (which would amount to cruelty but council would be attempting to charge under mandatory Codes covered by the DAA, thus they would have trouble making them stick, probably because the defensible Codes in POCTA contrdict the line council was taking) in preference for a sure-fire conviction on the unregistered business charge.

What's of concern to me is that there's an obvious bias towards regulation (as per all of the changes we have seen in recent years) without a concurrent focus on the purpose of regulation, which is to ensure better conditions (supposedly).

Futher to that, the current sentence was on the lower end of what could be given for the charge - how is that justifiable given the conditions, the guy moving dogs around to avoid charges and the whole reason for regulation in the first place? I'd guess that precedent in previous cases tied the judge's hands to a degree, but if that's the case, then that law needs to be tweaked to allow more appropriate sentencing.

[Dame Aussie]

How the f*** was that NOT animal cruelty? What the hell do the RSPCA think IS animal cruelty?

That's the whole problem.

[Steve]

If an AMO is also an authorised officer under POCTA, then council can prosecute for cruelty offences under that Act. Not sure if that's the case here though.

I understood the statement issued by council to mean that they dropped a number of charges related to the conditions (which would amount to cruelty but council would be attempting to charge under mandatory Codes covered by the DAA, thus they would have trouble making them stick, probably because the defensible Codes in POCTA contrdict the line council was taking) in preference for a sure-fire conviction on the unregistered business charge.

What's of concern to me is that there's an obvious bias towards regulation (as per all of the changes we have seen in recent years) without a concurrent focus on the purpose of regulation, which is to ensure better conditions (supposedly).

Futher to that, the current sentence was on the lower end of what could be given for the charge - how is that justifiable given the conditions, the guy moving dogs around to avoid charges and the whole reason for regulation in the first place? I'd guess that precedent in previous cases tied the judge's hands to a degree, but if that's the case, then that law needs to be tweaked to allow more appropriate sentencing.

Its only someone's say so that he was moving dogs around and so what if he was ? Its not against the law to move animals around as long as addresses and chips are changed .If the RSPCA have said that he wasn't guilty of animal cruelty why expect that council would be able to prove they were?

[Diana R]

Depends on the charges, but the Codes covered in the DAA (which stipulate conditions for breeding facilities and owned dogs) are mandatory, whereas the POCTA Codes aren't (but can be used as a defence to cruelty charges). The council could therefore charge for failure to comply with mandatory Codes (evidenced by sub-standard conditions), in situations where an authorised officer under POCTA couldn't.

The council obviously felt that the lesser charges wouldn't stick for some reason (possibly because the conditions were defensible using the POCTA Codes) so the went with the one they knew they would get a conviction on.

Also, if he was moving around animals that were supposed to be registered as part of his breeding business, to facilities that are non-compliant with the requirents and/or not providing vet care etc. as required, he would have been breaking the law IF he'd registered his business and dogs as he was supposed to. The point I was making is that the leniency he received on the unreg business charge was inappropriate, if the point of that law is to register breeding businesses in an attempt to make people accountable for the treatment of their dogs.

I have no idea if the council has evidence that dogs were moved, but given they weren't registered as part of a breeding business anyway, council can't do anything other than het him for not registering.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Diana R

[Steve]

Depends on the charges, but the Codes covered in the DAA (which stipulate conditions for breeding facilities and owned dogs) are mandatory, whereas the POCTA Codes aren't (but can be used as a defence to cruelty charges). The council could therefore charge for failure to comply with mandatory Codes (evidenced by sub-standard conditions), in situations where an authorised officer under POCTA couldn't.

The council obviously felt that the lesser charges wouldn't stick for some reason (possibly because the conditions were defensible using the POCTA Codes) so the went with the one they knew they would get a conviction on.

Also, if he was moving around animals that were supposed to be registered as part of his breeding business, to facilities that are non-compliant with the requirents and/or not providing vet care etc. as required, he would have been breaking the law IF he'd registered his business and dogs as he was supposed to. The point I was making is that the leniency he received on the unreg business charge was inappropriate, if the point of that law is to register breeding businesses in an attempt to make people accountable for the treatment of their dogs.

I have no idea if the council has evidence that dogs were moved, but given they weren't registered as part of a breeding business anyway, council can't do anything other than het him for not registering.

POCTA are laws not codes and unless the specific bits of a mandatory code of practice is also in that POCTA and someone breaches the code its not able to be a cruelty charge which is a criminal offence. Think it through how can you charge someone for keeping 4 dogs the same way they can keep two simply because a mandatory code of practice says more than 3 fertile dogs you have to do things differently .Yes they can remove your licence and yes they can fine you but you wont get anyone charged with cruelty for breaching a code of practice unless its something that is also covered in the act .

If this guy could have been charged with animal cruelty of course the RSPCA would have done so.You cant trust the reports about him moving dogs, not providing vet treatment etc because its information based on information from sources known to exaggerate and sensationalise. As far as him moving dogs around there is no requirement for dogs used for breeding to be only allowed on one property and not ever be able to visit others, stay in kennels live in guardian homes,go away for the weekend to a dog show etc . The council said he was now compliant and fact is if he hadnt of cut the deal he could have paid a bigger fine and continued to breed his dogs - because he was now compliant and according to the RSPCA hadnt breached cruelty laws.

The more time, again and again we spend on beating up those who seem to be letting people off leniently and speculating about the evidence and the real life things which impact on a case the longer we will see more crap scoff regulations and codes and dogs will keep suffering.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Steve

[Steve]

Anyone want to take bets - property is now compliant so how long will it be before the wife or son or daughter, aunty , uncle etc continue on with dogs in their name rather than his? Why else would he pay the money to get compliant and then agree not to continue to breed?

Edited May 20, 2015 by Steve

[Diana R]

Depends on the charges, but the Codes covered in the DAA (which stipulate conditions for breeding facilities and owned dogs) are mandatory, whereas the POCTA Codes aren't (but can be used as a defence to cruelty charges). The council could therefore charge for failure to comply with mandatory Codes (evidenced by sub-standard conditions), in situations where an authorised officer under POCTA couldn't.

The council obviously felt that the lesser charges wouldn't stick for some reason (possibly because the conditions were defensible using the POCTA Codes) so the went with the one they knew they would get a conviction on.

Also, if he was moving around animals that were supposed to be registered as part of his breeding business, to facilities that are non-compliant with the requirents and/or not providing vet care etc. as required, he would have been breaking the law IF he'd registered his business and dogs as he was supposed to. The point I was making is that the leniency he received on the unreg business charge was inappropriate, if the point of that law is to register breeding businesses in an attempt to make people accountable for the treatment of their dogs.

I have no idea if the council has evidence that dogs were moved, but given they weren't registered as part of a breeding business anyway, council can't do anything other than het him for not registering.

POCTA are laws not codes and unless the specific bits of a mandatory code of practice is also in that POCTA and someone breaches the code its not able to be a cruelty charge which is a criminal offence. Think it through how can you charge someone for keeping 4 dogs the same way they can keep two simply because a mandatory code of practice says more than 3 fertile dogs you have to do things differently .Yes they can remove your licence and yes they can fine you but you wont get anyone charged with cruelty for breaching a code of practice unless its something that is also covered in the act .

If this guy could have been charged with animal cruelty of course the RSPCA would have done so. You cant trust the reports about him moving dogs, not providing vet treatment etc because its information based on information from sources known to exaggerate and sensationalise. As far as him moving dogs around there is no requirement for dogs used for breeding to be only allowed on one property and not ever be able to visit others, stay in kennels live in guardian homes,go away for the weekend to a dog show etc . The council said he was now compliant and fact is if he hadnt of cut the deal he could have paid a bigger fine and continued to breed his dogs - because he was now compliant and according to the RSPCA hadnt breached cruelty laws.

The more time, again and again we spend on beating up those who seem to be letting people off leniently and speculating about the evidence and the real life things which impact on a case the longer we will see more crap scoff regulations and codes and dogs will keep suffering.

I'm obviously not explaining myself very well. As you can read about in this link http://www.depi.vic.gov.au/agriculture-and-food/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare/animal-welfare-legislation/victorian-codes-of-practice-for-animal-welfare the Codes covered under the DAA are mandatory (specifically the Code of breeding and rearing establishments), whereas the POCTA Codes are defensible (i.e. they should be used to advise people on how they should care for their animals and therefore if people can demonstrate that they have followed them, then can't be charged with cruelty). I took the combined information that was put out in public by the RSPCA and the council to mean that the puppy farmer in question wouldn't be charged under POCTA because he hadn't breeched the minimum requirements set out in the defensible Code (in this case it would be the private keeping of dogs I'd say) and they can't make a cruelty charge stick if that's the case.

The council however, COULD have charged the owner for a breech of the conditions required for breeding establishments (a mandatory Code which is enforceable), but chose not to because they would have a hard time making them stick, given the business wasn't registered AND the RSPCA had deemed that cruelty charges weren't relevant - they worded it poorly by using the word 'cruelty' when they were talking about the charges that they dropped, but based on the rest of the info I'd say the above situation (or the possibility that the AMO in charge is an authorised officer under POCTA) are the only two feasible explanations.

RSPCA aren't the only body that can seek to charge people under POCTA - the police can (and do under specific circumstances - IME they do an excellent job at it too) and some AMO's can IF they are recognised as AO's under the Act. RSPCA are also just as bound by resource limitations as everyone else that works in animal welfare, so they make decisions to follow up cases based on whether they think that the resources put in to *maybe* getting a conviction would be better used elsewhere (say, in keeping the puppy farmer on side so that they can get hold of the dogs and get them out of the situation - as often happens in hoarding cases).

The only question I really have in this whole situation is why the sentence for the unreg business charge was so light, given that the owner has a known history of re-offending and it appears that he's actively sought to dodge the system in order to get away with providing conditions that don't meet the requirements set out in the Code (which is mandatory IF he had been registered). If the purpose of registration is to create a system of accountability, then his offence is not minor and he should have received towards the higher end of the punishments available. As I said earlier, my guess as to why this happened is probably because of precedent in earlier cases (so there wasn't an option for the judge to actually give a harsher punishment) and if that's the case, then the law needs to be tweaked to allow for a more appropriate sentence to be given.

[Steve]

I think we are misunderstanding each other because Im speaking of the POCTAA which is legislation and you are speaking of the POCTA codes and breeding establishments Codes.

Notice this My link which may explain why it appears he wasn't given a higher penalty. I doubt he is a body corporate

[Diana R]

I understand that you are talking about the Acts themselves, but in the case of the DAA (which the council is using), the Code is recognised as part of that legislation.

The link you provided doesn't give a minimum or max for individuals, so it doesn't really explain why he was only fined $5000 (and costs?).

I agree that the language used by council when they explained their reasoning for only retaining the unreg DAB charge brought POCTA to mind, but I think it's just a case of poor phrasing on their behalf (unless the AMO involved was an AO under POCTA, in which case they may have considered actual cruelty charges).

[Sheridan]

My understanding from previous stories is that there were cruelty charges which were dropped by the council because they considered the domestic animal business charge to be the serious one.