Last week, Victorian farmer Joseph Dare pleaded guilty to 72 charges of animal cruelty and neglect at the Colac Magistrates Court. The animals in his care died of starvation, dehydration or illness. 170 animals were found dead, while another 45 had to be put down.
Dare was fined $75,000 and has been banned from owning cattle for ten years, highlighting a stark incongruity between what animals can be made to suffer (the details of which I encourage you to read here) and the consequences.
The lack of justice in cases like this raises important questions, like: what the hell sort of society do we live in? Why is behaviour we can (surely) all agree is cruel and inhumane permitted when the victims are non-human animals?
I think the answer to both questions lies in the fact that in the economic system we live in, animals are commodities. Cows, sheep or pigs, for example, are not individual agents with a right not to be systematically slaughtered. Instead, they’re financial assets. Their owners can sell what they produce, like milk or wool, or just sell the animals themselves—alive or not. This influences the way our society views animals that’s not at all dissimilar to the dehumanising effect slavery had on slaves, or the way ‘migrant workers’ are viewed by their masters today. You don’t need to be a vegan or a hippie to see this is true.
In case you have any doubts, this type of sick stuff isn’t a one-off, nor is it confined to Victoria. In May, a man in NSW accused of tying a kangaroo by the neck and attaching it to his car before dragging it down the road plead not guilty to animal cruelty charges. He’ll head back to court in August, and until then has not been subject to bail conditions.
Animal Justice Party MP Georgie Purcell believes that in the case of Dare, the Victorian State Government is partly to blame for the lack of serious deterrents.
“This individual would likely receive a much harsher penalty if Jacinta Allan stuck to her word and overhauled Victoria’s archaic animal welfare legislation,” said Purcell.
“We shamefully have some of the lowest penalties for cruelty in the country. As long as those who perpetrate cruelty know they will only get a slap on the wrist, it’s simply not a deterrent.”
A Victorian Government Spokesperson responded to Purcell’s remarks. “We have zero tolerance for animal cruelty - that’s why we’re strengthening Victoria’s animal cruelty laws with the new proposed Animal Care and Protection Bill,” they said via a written statement.
“Agriculture Victoria assesses each animal cruelty investigation for the most appropriate regulatory outcome, with prosecutions for serious matters.
“This offender has been fined $75,000, convicted and cannot own or manage animals for 10 years, highlighting how serious these offences have been taken and reiterating Victoria’s zero tolerance approach to animal welfare breaches.”
These are strong words, so let’s analyse the government’s claim that it has a “zero tolerance approach to animal welfare breaches”. In 2019, the Sentencing Advisory Council published a ‘comprehensive review of sentencing for animal cruelty offences in Victoria’ during the ten-year period ending on December 31, 2017. The report analysed the of data of 1115 cases and 2960 charges and found that only around 4 per cent of charges resulted in prison time. Out of the 83 Magistrates’ Court cases where prison sentences were issued, half of the 28 appeals resulted in a reduced sentence. Forty-five out of the 83 were aggregate sentences, meaning the individual served an accumulative sentence for more than one offence. In only seven of the 45 cases was someone sentenced exclusively for animal cruelty, while the majority were co-sentenced for other crimes that ‘tended to have higher maximum penalties than cruelty’. The average sentence length for the 38 non-aggregate animal cruelty sentences, according to the report, was three months, with the shortest being two days and the longest 18 months. For added context, the report says most cases (52.95 per cent) were prosecuted by RSPCA Victoria, a non-governmental organisation.
Furthermore, and despite the well-documented fact that corporations cause animals to suffer on a scale completely inaccessible to even the worst individuals, the report reveals they accounted for less than one per cent of those charged with animal cruelty. ‘No sentences of imprisonment were imposed for failing to provide treatment or improperly loading, crowding or confining an animal,’ it reads. It’s something we all know but perhaps don’t say enough: existing outside of the law is one of the many perks of being a multi-billion-dollar industry.
But what about since 2017? On the Agriculture Victoria website, from the period spanning all of 2018 to 2023, ‘the department prosecuted 55 cases, resulting in convictions or findings of guilt in respect of 406 charges’. Of these 406 charges, $971,200 worth of fines were issued, 14 people were banned from owning livestock for ten years and a total of 450 hours of community service was given, but none of the charges resulted in a prison sentence. So, when the government prosecutes animal cruelty cases, the strongest possible deterrent goes from being used rarely to not at all.
Regarding the Animal Care and Protection Bill, even the government’s Engagement Summary on the draft it published said it had received feedback from stakeholders who argue the new legislation ‘is a great improvement but it falls short of making Victoria a leader in animal welfare’.
All these facts put together tell us that in Victoria, there is (despite the rhetoric) at least some tolerance for animal cruelty. Something to think about while you walk your dog.
