For quite some time now the issue of animal cruelty has rapidly grown within Queensland. Animals are beaten, neglected, or forced to struggle for survival. They are left in unsanitary conditions with no food or water with little hope as they live out their days without the compassion they deserve leaving helpless animals to die each year. The penalties imposed by the current Queensland Criminal Code 1899 (Section 242) and the Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) (Section 17, 18 and 19), are an inadequate deterrent to those who would commit acts of animal cruelty in Queensland. Action needs to be taken to increase penalties and encourage harsher sentencing of offenders.
The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) promotes the responsible …show more content…
In a personal interview with Tracy Jackson a paralegal from Couper Geysen Family and Animal Law Firm in Brisbane, she stated that; “The available range is adequate however we would like to see more consistency in sentencing for cruelty offenders. Unfortunately, we still see cases where prosecutions are conducted by police with disappointing results. Police do not have expertise in the areas of animal cruelty investigations and prosecutions and this reflects quite often in the results obtained. We would also like to see more instances where offenders are sentenced to actual terms of imprisonment – however within the confines of the law and sentencing principles, this is not always possible.” And, RSPCA Queensland Senior Inspector Georgia Sakrzewski also stated that “The range of sentencing, especially with the addition of the Serious Animal Cruelty charge (s242 of Criminal Code) in Queensland is considered adequate, however, the severity of the penalties actually applied during the court process often do not reflect the serious nature of the offences. However, penalties are gradually increasing in line with community expectations, and RSPCA is glad to see this occur.” While both representatives stated that the sentences were adequate, they both mentioned that the penalties given were inadequate to …show more content…
Jackson had this to say; “Sometimes it is not in the public interest to prosecute an offender, however it is necessary in the interests of animal welfare to prohibit them from caring for animals. We would also like to see laws that require puppy farmers to pay money into Court prior to litigating in some circumstances – because in many cases the RSPCA remove hundreds of animals from these people, and the money they save on food is usually then spent fighting against RSPCA – who are all the while incurring huge expenses associated with providing care and veterinary treatment to the puppy farmers’
The Animal Care and Protection Act 2001 (QLD) promotes the responsible …show more content…
In a personal interview with Tracy Jackson a paralegal from Couper Geysen Family and Animal Law Firm in Brisbane, she stated that; “The available range is adequate however we would like to see more consistency in sentencing for cruelty offenders. Unfortunately, we still see cases where prosecutions are conducted by police with disappointing results. Police do not have expertise in the areas of animal cruelty investigations and prosecutions and this reflects quite often in the results obtained. We would also like to see more instances where offenders are sentenced to actual terms of imprisonment – however within the confines of the law and sentencing principles, this is not always possible.” And, RSPCA Queensland Senior Inspector Georgia Sakrzewski also stated that “The range of sentencing, especially with the addition of the Serious Animal Cruelty charge (s242 of Criminal Code) in Queensland is considered adequate, however, the severity of the penalties actually applied during the court process often do not reflect the serious nature of the offences. However, penalties are gradually increasing in line with community expectations, and RSPCA is glad to see this occur.” While both representatives stated that the sentences were adequate, they both mentioned that the penalties given were inadequate to …show more content…
Jackson had this to say; “Sometimes it is not in the public interest to prosecute an offender, however it is necessary in the interests of animal welfare to prohibit them from caring for animals. We would also like to see laws that require puppy farmers to pay money into Court prior to litigating in some circumstances – because in many cases the RSPCA remove hundreds of animals from these people, and the money they save on food is usually then spent fighting against RSPCA – who are all the while incurring huge expenses associated with providing care and veterinary treatment to the puppy farmers’