The number of animal welfare cases that end up in the legal system has doubled in recent years. At the same time, the level of punishment for offenses in the same type of cases is significantly tougher. Leave on your own The case from Grenland recently went to the Telemark District Court, where the owner of the rabbit was charged with several violations of the Animal Welfare Act. TA mentioned the case first. It was towards the end of December 2021 that the rabbit Tussi was left outside for several days. According to the verdict, the owner, among other things, had to ensure that the rabbit was safe from attacks by predators. He also did not have access to food, water and a warm shelter with sufficient heat. The rabbit’s teeth were among the key pieces of evidence in the case. Photo: Animal protection When the rabbit was caught, the animal was emaciated. He had discharge from his eyes and nose, and major problems with his teeth, so that he was unable to ingest food on his own, the court wrote. This is the animal welfare law Straffelova from 1842 made animal cruelty illegal, and in Norway the first animal protection law came in 1935. Since then, the law has been revised several times, and commitment to the well-being of animals has steadily increased. The Animal Welfare Act was adopted in 2009 and came into force on 1 January 2010. It replaced the Animal Protection Act from 1974. The purpose of the act is to promote good animal welfare and respect for animals. During these years, the focus has changed from avoiding animal cruelty and suffering to actively facilitating conditions for good animal welfare. The law is based on a fundamental premise that animals have an intrinsic value, and the protection went much further than protecting them from neglect, mistreatment and suffering. Source: Environmental crime, v/Hans Tore Høviskeland A problem throughout the country It was reports from people in the local area that led the authorities to take action. The police sent an officer to the property. He could tell that the rabbit was not feeling well. It was cold outside, and the water that had been seen had frozen. It was therefore decided that Animal Protection should capture Tussi. Four people took part in the search, and after several hours of effort they managed to catch the rabbit. This is confirmed by Veronica Olsen, who volunteers for the department of the animal welfare organization in Telemark. – The rabbit was in a terribly bad condition and emaciated when we found him, she says to news. This is also confirmed by a veterinarian, who is a witness in the case. She assessed the rabbit as having a score of 1 ½ out of 5 on a body weight index. The animal was nevertheless rescued, and is today adopted and lives with a new owner. – This rabbit won the lottery, says Olsen, who has seen many sad cases in recent years. – Rabbits are being dumped all over Norway, she says. Olsen is happy that such cases have consequences for the owners. – This is an important judgement, she believes. I see that attitudes are changing In recent years, own animal police have been set up all over the country. Last year, a total of 502 reports were registered for violations of the Animal Welfare Act in Norway. Tone Strømsnes Olsen, police lawyer in Økokrim and professional responsible for animal welfare crime in the police, clarifies that she does not know the case from Grenland in detail. Tone Strømsnes Olsen, police attorney and professional responsible for animal welfare crime in Økokrim. Photo: Caroline Bergli Tolfsen / news She nevertheless experiences that the courts in Norway give stricter penalties in cases involving violations of the Animal Welfare Act than before. At the same time, several more serious violations of the Animal Welfare Act are uncovered. – A sentence of 21 days in prison without conditions in a case of pet neglect is no longer unusual. It is a development we have seen in recent years, she says to news. – We see that society has changed its attitude to how animals should behave. Today, we probably also have greater knowledge about animals and their needs than we had previously, says Olsen. Considering appeal The woman who has now been sentenced, pleaded not guilty when the case went to court. She claimed that she had made sure the rabbit had what it needed, and that friends of hers had stopped by to make sure it was okay. The court nevertheless thought it was proven that she had not taken good enough care of her rabbit. Hans Egil Seljordslia, police inspector in the South-East police district. Photo: Knut Brendhagen / news The prosecutor in the case, Hans Egil Seljordslia, asked for 18 days in prison. The court increased the sentence to 21 days. – The important thing for us in the prosecution was that a sentence was meted out without conditions. Compared to other areas of punishment, the punishment is relatively severe, but in line with the signal the Supreme Court has given when it comes to animal welfare, he says. The matter will probably be repeated. This is according to Camilla Hagen, who is the woman’s lawyer. – My client thinks the punishment is far too severe, she says to news. Camilla Hagen defended the owner of the rabbit in the case. Photo: Jøte Toftaker / news The woman agrees with parts of the basis for the sentence, but still believes that the punishment is too severe in relation to what she has actually done. – Here there is a need for a legal clarification in relation to what level of punishment should be imposed in such cases, says Hagen.
ttn-69
