10.12.2021 Views

LSB December 2021 HR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

FEATURE<br />

Turkeys and the law<br />

DIANA THOMAS, CHAIR, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE<br />

The history and somewhat quirky<br />

nature of turkey case law illustrates<br />

that this humble fowl is so much more<br />

than the traditional protein element in a<br />

festive meal.<br />

BESTIALITY<br />

In 1642, in what was to become<br />

the United States of America, Thomas<br />

Granger was indicted for buggery with “a<br />

mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a<br />

turkey”. The man confessed to ‘lewd acts on<br />

a regular basis’ and was executed. 1<br />

Fast forward 200 years and in 1880 the<br />

NSW courts debated whether a turkey, as<br />

a fowl, could be considered an animal for<br />

the purposes of sodomy.<br />

The case, Queen v Reynolds 2 is one where<br />

“an unnatural connection” took place between<br />

a prisoner and the body of a male turkey.<br />

Debate then ensued as to whether ‘an<br />

unnatural connection’ with a fowl could be<br />

considered sodomy as a fowl did not come<br />

under the term ‘beast’. 3<br />

It was decided that an amendment to<br />

the Act 4 whereby ‘animal ‘was substituted<br />

for ‘beast’ meant that “all animals of the fowl<br />

kind” were now included in the definition.<br />

Thus, sodomy with a turkey became a<br />

crime in Australia.<br />

AIRPLANES<br />

Don Larson 5 was a proud turkey<br />

farmer in Iowa, USA. He valued his stock<br />

and took out an insurance policy on his<br />

turkeys covering death as a result of fire,<br />

lightning, explosion, smoke, vandalism and<br />

malicious mischief caused by huddling,<br />

piling, smothering, drowning, or freezing.<br />

21 July, 1964 was a hot day and two<br />

planes flew over Mr Larson’s turkey farm,<br />

one at 2pm and another at 5pm. There was<br />

32 THE BULLETIN <strong>December</strong> <strong>2021</strong><br />

nothing unusual about this as Mr Larson’s<br />

farm was on the flight path between<br />

Minneapolis and Des Moines. However,<br />

the 5pm plane was observed to maintain<br />

a height of 150 – 200 feet only and flew<br />

directly over 4300 insured turkeys.<br />

It was alleged the low flying plane<br />

caused the 4300 large turkeys to stampede,<br />

suffocating 2066 of them.<br />

Mr Larson claimed the deceased birds<br />

on his insurance policy under malicious<br />

mischief. The insurer refused the claim<br />

and the matter went to court where an<br />

expert witness testified that:<br />

“The birds that die from fright will die in a<br />

pile. I mean they will get to an object and that<br />

stops them, but they just keep piling on top of<br />

one another, whether it be from flying objects or<br />

from rats.”<br />

Mr Larson’s claim was ultimately<br />

denied by the court on grounds that they<br />

were unable to find in the record:<br />

“any evidence on which the jury could find the<br />

unidentified pilot was bent on mischief against<br />

the plaintiff and was prompted by an evil<br />

mind”.<br />

FEATHERS<br />

A NSW case of Harvey v John Fairfax<br />

Publications Pty Ltd 6 which involved a turkey<br />

farm, has been quoted several times in text<br />

books 7 in the context of form and capacity<br />

challenges in defamation proceedings.<br />

In 1997, the Sydney Morning Herald<br />

published the following in relation to this<br />

case:<br />

“…Harvey was running about 1000 turkeys<br />

in a paddock adjacent to the hotel and ‘it<br />

became a health issue because the residents got<br />

upset about the feathers blowing everywhere and<br />

turkey (droppings) getting into the creek”<br />

The article went on to state:<br />

“The council took him to court and ‘we must<br />

have won because the turkeys disappeared”.<br />

Mr Harvey brought a defamation case<br />

stating, amongst other matters, that the<br />

article impugned that he had seriously<br />

endangered public health.<br />

Ultimately, the initial pleading was<br />

struck out and leave granted for a<br />

repleading without the use of the word<br />

serious.<br />

BRUSH TURKEY EGG OMELETTE.<br />

The native brush turkey was a<br />

common source of meat during the<br />

great depression of the 1930s. 8 The eggs<br />

were celebrated as an excellent source of<br />

protein as they can weigh up to 180g each<br />

and are 80% yolk. 9<br />

After the second world war, due to<br />

decreasing numbers, turkeys became<br />

protected in Queensland 10 and NSW. 11<br />

In South Australia, brush or scrub<br />

turkeys, introduced to Kangaroo Island,<br />

are protected by the National Parks and<br />

Wildlife Act 12 with fines of up to $2500 or<br />

six months in prison for the taking of a<br />

protected animal or their eggs. There are<br />

exceptions to this for Aboriginal persons<br />

where the turkey will be used for food or<br />

cultural purposes. 13<br />

The turkey, both native and introduced,<br />

has shaped Australian bestiality,<br />

defamation and native protection law as<br />

well as feeding us through a depression<br />

and more recently becoming a much-loved<br />

therapy animal. 14 B

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!