You may have seen the news from a couple of days ago:

A 52-year-old Melbourne woman placed a batch of poisoned meat baits on the street in an attempt to harm pet dogs, leaving local pet owners on edge for some time. She was caught in the act yesterday. Witnesses saw her place roughly 19 poisoned baits, and police are now waiting on test results for the meat. If convicted, she could face a fine of up to AUD 90,870 or two years’ imprisonment.

Anyone living in Australia would know that the country has a very strict set of laws protecting animals, and takes a zero-tolerance approach to animal cruelty. Today, NS Legal would also like to share a recent case:

A client was looking after two goats while a friend was back overseas. During that time, one of the nanny goats fell ill. Because the client had no experience caring for animals, the goat’s condition worsened and it was ultimately euthanised by a vet. The client was charged in court with “aggravated animal cruelty” and came to us for defence. Through the efforts of NS Legal’s principal solicitor Candice Li, the maximum penalty originally on the table — a $170,000 fine plus imprisonment — was ultimately reduced to a $1,500 fine.

Below, NS Legal shares the story of this dramatic turnaround.

1. A Goat Fell Ill While the Client Was Looking After It

Without Timely Veterinary Care, the Goat Had to Be Euthanised

The client (referred to as “A”) was entrusted by a friend to help look after two goats on a farm while the friend was overseas, visiting the farm 1-2 times per week. During that time, one of the goats fell ill and could not move, lying on the ground. A had no prior experience caring for animals and did not know what to do. During the COVID lockdown, A also did not dare to breach the health restrictions, so instead of taking the goat to a vet, A searched online for solutions and continued to monitor the situation.

Because the sick goat could no longer walk, A placed food near its mouth to try to feed it. What A did not realise was that the goat’s digestive tract was already compromised, so eating only worsened its diarrhoea. After the sick goat had been lying on the ground unable to walk for a whole week, someone reported the situation. When RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) inspectors arrived at the farm, they found one of the goats lying on the ground, barely alive, with a dish of food and water beside it. The inspectors took the goat to a vet, but its condition was too severe to treat, and the vet ultimately euthanised it.

A was subsequently prosecuted by the RSPCA on three charges:

1. Aggravated animal cruelty

2. Failure to provide sufficient food and water

3. Failure to obtain veterinary treatment

The first charge — “aggravated cruelty” — is a very serious one. In NSW, the relevant animal cruelty offences are Cruelty and Aggravated Cruelty, and the most fundamental difference between them is whether the animal in the case died. Once a conviction for aggravated cruelty is entered, an individual can face a maximum penalty of 1,000 penalty units (in NSW, 1 penalty unit is $110), which amounts to AUD 110,000, or two years’ imprisonment, or both. The penalties for the second and third charges are: failure to provide sufficient water and food — a $16,500 fine and/or 6 months’ imprisonment; failure to provide veterinary treatment — a $44,000 fine and/or 12 months’ imprisonment.

So in this case, A was facing a potential maximum penalty of a $170,000 fine and/or more than two years’ imprisonment.

A felt this was terribly unfair. First, she had been helping her friend out as a volunteer, without being paid. Second, she had been feeding and caring for the goats on a regular schedule — there was simply no factual basis for “cruelty”. After the goat had collapsed, she had checked on it and tried to care for it several times; she just felt that, with lockdown making it inconvenient to take the goat to the vet, the goat would gradually recover on its own. She had no idea the consequences would be this severe. Faced with the charge of “aggravated cruelty”, A was initially unable to accept it. In her view, she had never actively inflicted harm on the goat — this was simply an accident caused by a lack of experience. And indeed, when most people hear the word “cruelty”, their first instinct is to picture someone deliberately harming an animal. But whether conduct amounts to aggravated cruelty actually has nothing to do with intention. It depends on whether the animal died as a result of the defendant’s conduct, whether that conduct is an act (active harm) or an omission (neglect, failure to feed, failure to obtain treatment).

2. Reaching a Plea Agreement with the Prosecution

A came to us and explained her situation, and NS Legal’s principal solicitor Candice Li took on the case. After fully understanding the facts, we immediately contacted the RSPCA’s legal representative (the prosecution).

We first explained the background of the case to the prosecution, and after negotiations between both sides, we reached a plea deal on A’s behalf: A would plead guilty to the first charge of “aggravated cruelty”, and the prosecution would withdraw the second and third charges. As a result, the maximum fine A was facing dropped from $170,000 to $110,000.

3. In Court: Asking the Magistrate for Leniency

On the day of the hearing, the magistrate initially indicated that a lenient sentence would not be appropriate. The magistrate repeatedly emphasised in court that A’s conduct was too cruel — the equivalent of leaving the goat there to die. Our solicitor pleaded with the magistrate for a lenient sentence, explaining that too heavy a fine or imprisonment would cause enormous impact on the client’s life and mental wellbeing, while also representing A in actively acknowledging her serious wrongdoing to the magistrate and promising never to repeat it.

4. Final Outcome: Just a $1,500 Fine!

The Magistrate Said to A: You Should Thank Your Lawyer

The solicitor then again advised A to sincerely acknowledge her wrongdoing to the magistrate — to acknowledge the seriousness of the incident and her own fault. We also expressed her apology on her behalf at the sentencing. After this plea for leniency, the magistrate considered that A’s attitude in admitting guilt was good, and ultimately reduced the sentence from the maximum penalty of $110,000 down to a $1,500 fine and a ban on purchasing, keeping or caring for pets for 2 years.

At the end, the magistrate said to A:

“You should really thank your lawyer, she did a very good job for you. I have sent many to jail because of doing this.”

(You should thank your lawyer — she did an excellent job defending you. I have sent many people to jail for doing something like this.)

A Final Word from the Lawyer

This outcome is a relatively good result for both the lawyer and the client. Although A’s conduct was genuinely unintentional, the case shows just how heavy the penalties for animal cruelty in Australia can be, regardless of whether the conduct was deliberate or not. Through this case, one can also appreciate how comprehensive Australia’s animal protection legislation is, and it should serve as a wake-up call for all of us who keep pets. Whether you are keeping a pet yourself, helping a friend look after one for a short period, or running any kind of commercial animal-care business, you need to clearly understand your duties and responsibilities. Unlike many cases in China that are settled simply by paying compensation, in Australia, harming an animal — whether by act or omission — is a criminal matter that can be prosecuted and can result in very serious consequences.