LSB December 2021 HR

ANIMAL LAW
Animals and intervention orders:
tree hugging nonsense or natural
evolution of domestic violence laws?
RONAN O’BRIEN AND DIANA THOMAS, ANIMAL LAW COMMITTEE
The statistics don’t lie. The link between
domestic violence and animal abuse
is well known with some studies showing
53% of women escaping domestic violence
report their pets were harmed and 35%
state they delayed seeking refuge out of
concern for the welfare of their pet. 1
The Royal Commission into Family
Violence in 2016 heard testimony from
numerous victims illustrating how animals
are often used in coercive control: 2
• Once he cut the head off my mother’s pet
to ‘teach her a lesson’.
• He regularly beat – and I mean beat
– the shit out of our dogs.
• He killed my animals.
• He would say to me, ‘Here’s your precious
dog, this is what you do to me’, and pretend
to snap her neck. 3
Animal abuse cases, often prosecuted
by state-based RSPCAs, regularly involve
an element of domestic violence.
• In Bond v RSPCA 4 the appellant was
fighting with his girlfriend. During
the argument, he picked up her dog,
slashed its throat and stabbed the dog
four times. He then threw the bloodied
body of the dog in the bin.
• In a 2019 ACT case 5 CCTV footage
shows the abuser smiling as, instead
of feeding his ex-girlfriend’s dog, he
punched, kicked, and hit the animal
with a shovel for 20 minutes. The dog
was euthanised due to its injuries.
ABUSED ANIMALS TREATED AS DAMAGED
PROPERTY
Animals are specifically mentioned
within the Intervention Orders (Prevention
of Abuse) Act 2009 (SA) (“the Act”)
regarding examples of emotional or
psychological harm: 6
…an act of abuse against a person resulting
in emotional or psychological harm may be
comprised of any of the following:
causing the death of, or injury to, an animal.
The legislation allows for intervention
orders to be issued for the protection of
a person if it is “reasonable to suspect that the
defendant will, without intervention, commit an
act of abuse against a person.” 7
Whilst the above clauses show there
can be preventative measures put in place
for the safety of a protected person, the
current legislation is not specific in its
ability to protect the actual animals that
are at risk of abuse.
Given that animals are regarded as
property in SA, it is possible for animals
to fall within the provisions of the Act
that state: 8
An act is an act of abuse against a person if
it results in or is intended to result in—
damage to property in the ownership or
possession of the person or used or otherwise
enjoyed by the person.
Further, given the proprietary status
of animals, the following intervention
terms within the Act may be relevant to
protecting specified animals: 9
• Prohibit the defendant from damaging
specified property;
• Prohibit the defendant from taking
possession of specified personal
property reasonably needed by a
protected person;
• Require the defendant to return specified
personal property to a protected person.
Specifying animals as requiring
protection
Rather than implying that animals may
fall within the preventative measures of
the Act used to protect property, South
Australia could look to other jurisdictions
that have specifically identified animals as
requiring protection.
The NSW parliament addressed this
problem in March 2021 by specifically
recognising the intersection between animal
abuse and domestic violence in their Crimes
(Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007. 10
Every apprehended violence order
in NSW is now taken to specify that the
defendant is prohibited from harming
an animal that belongs to or is in the
possession of the protected person with
whom the protected person has a domestic
relationship. 11
Victoria has taken a further step
forward, specifically recognising that the
animal threatened with harm may not
necessarily be a pet of the victim. Their
definition of family violence includes:
“causing or threatening to cause the death of,
or injury to, animal, whether or not the animal
belongs to the family member to whom the
behaviour is directed so as to control, dominate
or coerce the family member.” 12
This overcomes circumstances where
an abuser may obtain for themselves a
new animal with the intent to threaten or
coerce the protected person, or indeed
circumstances where they may threaten to
harm a stray animal or wildlife.
In Queensland, as a condition of a
domestic violence order, the court may
prohibit the respondent from possessing
a thing used, or threatened to use, in
committing domestic violence. 13 Whilst
the legislation extends the definition of
“things” to include animals, this would
not prevent a perpetrator from obtaining
a new animal to harm as the restriction
8
THE BULLETIN December 2021