Daniele v Weissenberger

[2002] WASCA 289

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Animals
2. › Prevention of cruelty to animals
3. › Offence to ill-treat an animal
4. › Meaning of 'ill-treat'
5. › Whether inclusive definition exhaustive
6. › Whether failure to take reasonable care and supervision of captive animals constitutes ill-treatment
7. › Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1920 (WA), s 3(f), s 4(1)(a)
1. Animals
2. › Prevention of cruelty to animals
3. › Sentencing and consequential orders
4. › Power to disqualify from ownership
5. › Whether court empowered to prohibit future ownership of animals
6. › Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1920 (WA), s 21
1. Evidence
2. › Expert evidence
3. › Whether expert evidence necessary to establish ill-treatment of animals
4. › Whether ill-treatment is a question of fact provable by lay evidence
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Inclusive definitions
3. › Use of word 'includes'
4. › Whether inclusive definition confines or limits ordinary meaning of defined term

Quick Take

The inclusive definition of 'ill-treat' in s 3(f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1920 (WA) does not limit the ordinary meaning of the term; ill-treatment encompasses any form of bad treatment including failure to make appropriate provision for captive animals' essential needs or use of means of captivity involving unnecessary harmful consequences. Expert evidence is not required as a matter of law to prove ill-treatment. Section 21 does not authorise a court to prohibit future ownership of animals; it is limited to depriving a convicted owner of existing animals.