Anti-Cruelty

Displaying 661 - 670 of 962
Titlesort descending Summary
Proposal for the Introduction of the Protection of Animals in the Constitution of the Portuguese Republic


This article sets our the argument for adding to the Constitution of Portugal a provision for the Protection of Animals.
PROTECÇÃO DOS ANIMAIS NA CONSTITUIÇÃO DA REPÚBLICA PORTUGUESA


Considerando a actual Constituição da República Portuguesa, de acordo com a última Revisão Constitucional, feita em 2001, propõe-se a introdução da seguinte disposição na Constituição, devendo a mesma ser incluída na
Protecting Cats and Dogs in Order to Protect Humans: Making the Case for a Felony Companion Animal Statute in Mississippi


This Article proceeds in several parts. Part II discusses the reasons behind the enactment of both early and modern animal cruelty statutes, and part III identifies the common features of modern animal cruelty laws. Part IV details Mississippi's animal cruelty statutes and compares them to typical modern cruelty laws. Part V describes the provisions of Senate Bill No. 2623 in detail and explains why the Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation and others opposed Senate Bill No. 2623. Part VI argues that the objections to Senate Bill No. 2623 were frivolous and makes the case for a felony companion animal statute in Mississippi. Finally, part VII contends that a bill modeled on Senate Bill No. 2623 should be introduced during the 2011 legislative session and passed by the Mississippi legislature.
Putnam County Humane Society v. Marjorie Duso d/b/a/ Oakwood Kennels, Putnam County Florida


The Putnam County (Florida) Humane Society brought an action seeking permanent custody of 41 dogs from Marjorie Duso, the operator of a kennel. The PCHS is a not-for-profit corporation that is devoted to the prevention of cruelty to animals pursuant to Florida law. Under that authority, the PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The PCHS seized and took custody of the dogs after an investigation led to the discovery of neglect and mistreatment of the dogs at the kennel. The Putnam County Court granted the PCHS custody of the dogs (except for Ms. Duso’s personal pet dog, which the PCHS was given the right to check on at least once a month). Further, the court enjoined Ms. Duso from owning, possessing, or breeding dogs except those kept as personal pets.
Qaddura v. State
The court held that the owner of livestock who placed them in the care of his tenant while he was on vacation for a month, but failed to provide his tenant with enough food for the livestock could be found guilty under the animal cruelty statute.

  
QUATTROCCHIO WANDA S/ MALTRATO ANIMAL This is an animal cruelty case in which Wanda Quattrochio witnessed the defendant whipping the neighbor's dogs. Wanda recorded the events and filed a complaint about animal cruelty. The defendant was in charge of caring for the dogs while their owner was away. When the authorities arrived at the house to seize the dogs, they found six dogs in small dirty kennels, with unclean water and without food. After considering the testimony of witnesses and other evidence, the judge concluded that the defendant had violated articles 1-3 of the anti-cruelty law (Ley 14.346) and was found guilty of animal cruelty. In her analysis of the case, the judge stated that animals were not things or resources but rather living beings with the potential to be "subjects of life."
R (on the application of Patterson) v. RSPCA The defendants had been convicted of a number of counts of animal cruelty in 2011, to include unnecessary suffering pursuant to Section 4, and participation in a blood sport under Section 8 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Mr Patterson was found to have breached an attached disqualification order under Section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, on which this appeal is based. The order covered all types of animals for a period of five years. This prohibited him from owning, keeping, participating in the keeping of, or being a party to an arrangement under which he would be entitled to control or influence the way in which animals are kept. A number of animals were found and seized at the home. The appeal was allowed on the basis that Mr Patterson was not entitled to control or influence the way in which the animals were kept by his wife on the facts.
R v D.L. In R v D.L. (1999 ABPC 41) the phrase “wilfully and without lawful excuse” found in s.446 was at issue. In this case, two individuals were charged under s. 445(a) s.446 (1)(a) for killing a cat after the cats’ owner told them to “get rid of it” which they took to mean kill it. The judge in this case found that having permission to kill an animal was not a sufficient “lawful excuse” and did not lawfully give the authority to cause unnecessary pain and suffering to the animal. The accused was found not guilty on count 1 and guilty on count 2.
R v. Menard
R v. Shand In R v Shand 2007 ONCJ 317 (CanLII), the court examined the necessary elements required to established the “willful” mens rea component present in Canadian Federal Criminal Statute s. 429. The accused was charged with three counts of animal cruelty contrary to s.446 of the Criminal Code in relation to a dog in her care. The court found that on two of the counts that the accused was had acted "wilfully" because she was either "reckless or indifferent as to her dog's condition."

Pages