It was basically a fundamentally important judgment from the Court of Appeal which was supposed to say something about the line between reprimand and violence against one’s own dog. Now the sentence becomes even more special, because the court split in two: The two legal professional judges, who were a minority, wanted the man to be sentenced to suspended prison for 60 days. The lay judges, who made up the majority, consisted of two veterinarians, a farmer and two advisers from NAV. They believed that the man had to be sentenced to unconditional imprisonment for 120 days. Thus, the majority’s view was decisive, and the man was sentenced to four months in prison. – The dissent in this case is unusual. In my years as a permanent defender in court, I have not seen anything like it, says lawyer Marius Wesenberg, who defended the man in the Court of Appeal. He says that the judgment will be appealed to the Supreme Court both in terms of proceedings and application of the law. Unusual The expert judges and the team judges disagree whether the act was done with intent, i.e. with intent and will, or whether it was grossly negligent in the sense that the defendant did not understand what the consequence was. – I have never come across this situation, with such a clear disagreement on virtually all questions. The expert judges essentially agree with our side. They agree that he has done the best he can, says Wesenberg. Marius Wesenberg is a regular defender, and says he is surprised at how disagreeing the judges have been. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news It is not obvious that there will be new treatment. When the case is appealed, the Supreme Court can refuse to take the case further. – It is always difficult to get a case into the Supreme Court. But here there is such a big difference between professional judges and lay judges that the Supreme Court will probably be able to consider that it is interesting, says Wesenberg. Broken bone The man was charged with having caused the dog unnecessary suffering because he spent a long time getting a broken bone treated by a veterinarian. The man’s explanation was that he lacked the money to carry out the operation and had to get it first. In total, the man spent close to fifty thousand kroner on the treatment. The dog was run over when it was a puppy, and it was almost six weeks before the broken bone was operated on. The majority in the court find it proven that the defendant acted intentionally. They believe he understood that the dog was suffering and yet chose not to provide adequate treatment and pain relief. According to the expert co-jurors, the defendant did not have enough painkillers, and it was six weeks before the defendant visited a veterinarian, the judgment states. The minority, i.e. the professional judges, find that the defendant has acted grossly negligently. In their opinion, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant did what he thought was sufficient for the dog, based on his assumptions and understanding of the situation. It is a robust type of dog, and the extent to which the dog has appeared to be affected by pain appears to the minority as unclear, writes the Court of Appeal. Did not follow up on allergies In addition, the man was charged with failing to follow up on allergies in the dog. Here the man explained that he had bought special food and put the dog on a special diet, but this was not sufficient. The majority of the court also thought that it was a serious violation, something the professional judges do not agree with. Although it would possibly have been easy to have the dog relocated, the minority understands that the defendant considered it unrealistic to relocate a sick mixed breed dog. The accused and his defender are appealing the sentence to the Supreme Court. Photo: John Inge Johansen / news Convicted of two acts of violence The last charge was for violence against the dog, based on a report of concern that said he had thrown and kicked the dog. Some of the actions were captured by a surveillance camera at a shopping center in the center of Bergen. The court eventually came to the conclusion that the acts of violence could be linked to three individual cases. The Court of Appeal has reviewed the recording several times, and concludes: The dog was never thrown or kicked into any door. It was not about kicking. What the defendant did with his foot was to put his foot on the outside of the dog for protection against an electric wheelchair that was on its way out of the pharmacy. The defendant then calmly pushed the dog against the wall with his foot, so that there was more room for the wheelchair. On two occasions the dog was pushed against the wall, but not thrown into it. None of these actions are considered violence, but in two other cases the defendant grabbed the dog’s collar and pushed the dog somewhat harshly backwards. The action against the dog appeared unnecessary and inappropriate and above the threshold for what is punishable. It was punishable violence when the defendant lifted the forepart of the dog and dragged it backwards. He acted deliberately. The other parts of this sequence were inappropriate, but not punishable. The third incident is not on the video but happened at a shop in the same shopping centre. Here, too, he must have pulled hard on the collar. The original video is just over 12 minutes. news has increased the speed between the various events that the court has assessed. The relevant events are played at normal speed. Few decisions The case was led by police attorney Inger Helen Stenevik, who says that there are few corresponding court decisions under the Animal Welfare Act. – The fact that the professional judges have dissented on several points means that the judgment has less legal weight than if it were unanimous, says Stenevik. She adds that the public prosecutor is satisfied with the outcome and will not appeal. – I was a little surprised that the court could not prove that there was violence beyond the three things for which he has been convicted. Then the scope of the violence will be very limited in relation to what the indictment was all about, she says. Inger Helen Stenevik is a police lawyer and has helped develop the “Animal Welfare Act” Photo: John Inge Johansen / news The Court of Appeal was unanimous that two of the actions carried out in this video and one other incident were violence. – I think it’s nice that the Court of Appeal emphasizes this with the intrinsic value of animals, says Stenevik.
ttn-69
Dog owner sentenced to four months in prison – news Vestland
