Queensland Live Baiting

[Steve]

My link

My link

Greyhound video evidence ruled inadmissible

29 August 2016 , 8:05 AM by Spencer Howson

An animal cruelty case against a Queensland greyhound trainer has collapsed after a KEY piece of evidence was thrown out of court.

The Courier Mail reports today - video of alleged greyhound live baiting was ruled inadmissible by an Ipswich District Court judge last Friday.

It meant trainer Ian Hoggan will not have to face trial on one count of animal cruelty.

Judge Greg Koppenal found the recordings - which featured in a 4 Corners program - were obtained illegally when animal rights activists secretly installed cameras by trespassing on private property.

Yet - just weeks ago - a different judge in a separate case DID allow the same video to be used.

So where does this leave future greyhound cruelty cases that also rely on the same footage? Bill Potts is a criminal defence lawyer and President of the Queensland Law Society:

Edited August 28, 2016 by Steve

[dogbesotted]

maybe now we can begin to realise that the law has nothing at all to do with ethics or morality it exists to protect those who have power/money or are seen as being useful

[Lhok]

I would have no issue if it was the police setting up the cameras as part of an operation or even the RSPCA as part of animal cruelty investigations, but I do have a problem with random people trespassing and setting up cameras etc.

--Lhok

[PossumCorner]

Thanks Steve, good link. So it is discretionay and does not set a precedent (I was some concerned just reading it about issues like puppy farming or battery egg farms).

Really need to listen through the audio clip for a better understanding, and yes the discretionary decision can go to the Court of Appeal, so it's not a done deal yet.

Lhok - as he said in Steve's link - to make it squeaky-clean legal the film-crew would have to have been invited to the property to film. Hollow laughter, like that would ever happen! Sometimes the RSPCA would not be considering an investigation where there was no prior information. I don't like invasion of privacy either, but with issues like this and it is the only way, so be it.

[Little Gifts]

At least this trainer might now be looking over his shoulder all the time worried any cruelty or neglect will be caught again. And if he does nothing wrong in the future then he can just live his life without worry. I'm not big on covert operations myself but there is usually a reason that triggers it. If someone decided to film what I got up to they'd be awfully bored.

In relation to what happens at puppy farms or hoarders or some BYB's I have to say this - think about your own worst case scenario with your animals. Maybe one is a little overdue for a nail cut or a bath/groom. Maybe the dog beds are a little whiffy but it has been raining so you haven't washed them. Maybe you haven't picked up any poo in the backyard for a couple of days, maybe you just noticed one of their outside water bowls is a bit green (inside ones are fine). Maybe you came home from work to find one of your dogs had shredded a piece of furniture in the yard and you left it there overnight. Maybe you got caught in traffic and you are an hour late giving them dinner. You would never chain your animal for an extensive period unless the fence was broken. You would beat yourself up if they injured themselves on something in the backyard that you hadn't noticed. These are all normal things we might face because we lead busy lives. They are on our list of things to do and we do them as soon as we can. You still see, touch and interact with them in some capacity every single day because that is as important to you as it is to them. But with these abuse cases there are animals living in cages filled with weeks of excrement. Or they might be chained to something and surrounded by their own filth and human rubbish for days on end. They never have any bedding regardless of the season. There are no toys to chew on or play with. Their water bowls are totally empty. They are starving because they have missed more than one meal. Their hair is matted because no-one has looked at them or touched them in months. Their nails are curling under for the same reason - no-one has noticed or cared. If they get injured then they have to suffer on their own. There is no 'to do' list with their needs written on it. This is the difference to me and no companion animal should be subjected to even a minute of this kind of neglect. If very basic needs cannot be met over the long term then the animal simply can't stay there. Nothing is going to magically change if a person either doesn't care or doesn't have the mental capacity to care. All the support in the world will not make those kinds of changes sustainable if there is no desire or understanding. How come most people get that and the law doesn't want to?

Owning an animal is a personal choice, not an essential need. A level of responsibility comes with that ownership whether you are making a living from them or keeping them as a pet - regular sustenance, adequate sanitary shelter for where you live and physical care as required to keep them well, otherwise go buy yourself a stuffed toy.