Where is the line for what constitutes violence against animals? That is the question the Gulating Court of Appeal will now decide on. Their decision may have implications for many pet owners. On the dock sits a man who says he is extremely fond of his dog. When the dog was hit, the owner reportedly stopped eating, went to the Blue Cross and the Church’s City Mission, collected empty bottles and got a joint venture started to pay for surgery. He has spent almost NOK 60,000 at vets so that the mixed dog “Manchita” would recover from broken bones and allergic reactions. Lawyer Marius Wesenberg and the accused man believe that what has happened is not optimal dog keeping, but also not in violation of the Animal Protection Act. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news Now Manchita has been relocated and adopted away. The owner risks unconditional imprisonment. Reports of concern The reason is that the police received a report and the Norwegian Food Safety Authority received a report of concern from several people who believed that the owner had abused the dog. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority took over the care of the animal. An investigation was then started into why the dog was limping. It all ended in an indictment and trial, where the man was sentenced in the district court to 120 days of unconditional imprisonment and was banned from owning animals. The man has appealed and is now fighting to be believed in the Court of Appeal. – When you are prosecuted for serious violence for the actions taken in this case, many people have to be very aware of their own behavior towards dogs. Now very many dog owners can end up in the danger zone, says the man’s defender, lawyer Marius Wesenberg. Lawyer Marius Wesenberg says It’s about a man who gets into an unforeseen situation with his dog, who gets a broken leg, then an allergy, uses absolutely all the means and resources to alleviate this, but it’s not enough – and where he is still punished for not having done enough. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news First asked for seven months’ imprisonment The prosecution submitted a request in the district court for seven months’ unconditional imprisonment for the man. – It was on the basis of Supreme Court practice and the guidance given there. Now we have received a sentence in the district court of four months in prison. Our claim in this appeal is five months in prison, says the prosecutor in the case, police attorney Inger Helen Stenevik in the West police district. – The judgments from the Supreme Court are the starting point, and then no one gives any clear guidelines for this type of case. So it is fundamentally important what the Court of Appeal comes to, says Stenevik. Previous judgments on animal welfare The Supreme Court has had a case against a man who was convicted of euthanizing a dog by tying it to a concrete pipe and throwing it off a bridge. The dog died of drowning after three to four minutes, and the man was sentenced to 120 days in prison with some deduction for confession. In another case, the Supreme Court sentenced a man to 75 days in prison. He had sexually abused three dogs at least 20 times over seven years. A video evidence has been presented to the court. news has edited the 12-minute recording down to 2.5 minutes. The periods that are not central are played at 20x speed. – Repeated cases of violence – In principle, in this case there are no single cases of serious violence, but the court must decide how it is that you subject an animal to repeated cases of violence without the individual case being serious, says Stenevik. The district court determined that “general preventive considerations dictate that there should be a relatively strict reaction to the conditions”. The accused and his defense counsel do not understand this. – Our opinion is that it is not a situation of violence, but perhaps a too rough handling for dressage purposes. He admits that he is a little too tough with the dog right here, but we believe that this is not violence, says lawyer Wesenberg. What was it that happened? According to the indictment, the man must have exercised violence against the dog on several occasions. He allegedly hit it with his hand, jerked the collar hard, pushed it to the ground, patted its thigh and was aggressive towards the dog. In addition, according to the prosecution, he must have failed to ensure that the dog received good supervision and care. The dog’s broken leg was operated on after the man managed to obtain funding, the prosecution believes it took too long. The alternative was to euthanize the dog, as the man perceives it. A central point in the case concerns a broken leg that the dog suffered after a collision when it was seven months old. The owner then took it to an emergency department and received help. But he did not return to control as agreed. Instead, he visited another vet after a month, and was there referred to surgery. He carried out this with a specialist, six weeks after the collision. The prosecution believes the dog was walking in pain for an unreasonably long time. Police attorney Inger Helen Stenevik was the project manager for the new animal welfare act and has previously been a lawyer with responsibility for animal welfare in the Ministry of Agriculture, the Animal Health Authority and the Food Safety Authority. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news – The most serious thing, as the prosecution sees it, is probably the consequences for the dog because he did not get help in connection with illness and injury. – But the dog is still alive, relocated and doing well now? – She has been relocated to new owners, and she has a very serious illness that requires treatment. So it goes to the vet every single month, and must be followed up closely by competent owners, and has thus had a good life, says police attorney Stenevik. Animal Welfare Act The charges are covered by the Animal Welfare Act section 24 b): “Animal keeper must ensure that animals receive good supervision and care, including ensuring that animals are protected against injury, disease, parasites and other dangers. Sick and injured animals must be given proper treatment and euthanized if necessary.” Paragraph 14 a) of the same law reads “It is forbidden to exercise violence against animals” Had to pay with a consumer loan The emergency room cost NOK 12,500 – and he was predicted an expense of almost NOK 50,000 for follow-up before the operation. When the dog finally had surgery on its leg, it cost almost NOK 40,000, which he financed with a consumer loan. – The car that hit the dog just ran away, I had my attention on the animal and not on the car, so I didn’t get the registration number, the defendant tells news. Normally, such a case would be covered by the car’s liability insurance. But when the driver ran away, the owner is left with all the expenses. The parties’ final submissions in the Court of Appeal The prosecutor is police attorney Inger Helene Stenevik. It is the prosecuting authority that has the burden of proof in criminal cases and it must be proven and beyond reasonable doubt that the events happened as they allege. In her closing procedure, she emphasized the following: How much physical and psychological strain did the dog suffer from walking with a broken leg for six weeks? The suffering has been realized because of the defendant’s actions. Personal circumstances such as poor finances should not be mitigating circumstances. The accused does not have the competence to take care of animals. When it comes to the violence, it is the extent, the repetition and not necessarily the events on the pharmacy video that are used as a basis. Through the new Animal Welfare Act, political Norway has raised the level of punishment, and this contributes to raising the status of animals. Dogs are the most violent animal and we know that there are many dogs in the country. Severe punishment will have a deterrent effect and will work as a general preventive measure. The accused must also be prohibited from having anything to do with animals until further notice. Defense attorney Marius Wesenberg claims a full acquittal for the man. He concluded by emphasizing the following: For the broken leg and its treatment, it is recognized that it was not optimal animal husbandry. The consequence would have been to euthanize the dog, which the defendant did not want, and which has proven to be the right choice all the while the dog is still doing well today. Relocation would have been difficult since it is a mixed breed dog that faced large expenses with medical follow-up. Should the defendant be convicted because the dog had an allergy? If so, when is it a criminal offense not to follow this up? A dog owner must be able to do his own research without going to a vet – without it being in conflict with the Animal Protection Act, and the defendant took many measures to overcome the allergy. The messages of concern about violence bear the stamp of being exaggerated and sent at about the same time as a coordinated action. There are 40 minutes between some of the messages and they appear very serious, do not reflect reality. Some say “the dog was thrown into the door” and “he kicked her into the door”. One can see the same event but have a different perception of what is happening. In the video, some see that there are serious offences, while others see that he pulls the dog and is determined with it, but we believe that this is not violence, and that it does not cause the dog pain. The defendant agrees that on this day the dog received unnecessarily harsh treatment, but not that it was violence. Denial of activities (ban on keeping animals) is disproportionate and unnecessary. Didn’t show up for a check-up. Later, the dog was diagnosed with an allergy. The owner was given a prescription for the skin problems and the vet asked him to come back for a check-up. The dog owner started with allergy-friendly food and allergy tablets. The defense’s witnesses paint a picture of a man who was devotedly fond of his dog, and who at the time had major financial challenges. – Prosecutor Stenevik, doing your best isn’t necessarily enough? – No, good intentions and love are not enough when you have to take responsibility for animals. You must have competence, knowledge, skills and good enough finances, among other things, she replies. Today, the dog has been relocated and receives regular follow-up for the allergy. Judgment in the case falls on 1 February.
ttn-69
– Now very many dog owners can end up in the danger zone – news Vestland
