Replies

The new code is based off of what was inacted in Canada.

Animal Lovers and Others
by Alan Caruba
November 4, 2004

People say that all the really bad liberal ideas start in California and then ooze out from the left coast to cover the rest of the nation. Not so. I believe that New Jersey is ignored for its egregiously stupid, liberal ideas, and I want to set the record straight.

Until November 15, we still have a disgraced Governor, James E. McGreevey, who will leave in his wake a State whose bonds are approaching “junk” status and his very own Animal Welfare Task Force.
Recently, the State’s largest circulation newspaper, the Star-Ledger, got its hands on the nearly 200 pages of draft recommendations that are under review by the 30-member task force. One, I might add, a task force whose members largely represent the animal rights movement. In short, the task force, like just about every other government entity in the Garden State, is rigged.

Among the recommendations under consideration is the inclusion of animal abuse laws under the State’s criminal code, increasing penalties, and creating new prosecution units. This, by the way, would put animals on a par with humans, a status they do not enjoy anywhere else. Pained as they were, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, just tossed out a case representing the world’s whales, porpoises, and dolphins, saying they had no standing to sue the President over the U.S. Navy’s use of sonar equipment. Congress still shows no intention of granting animals the same status before the bar of justice as humans. This is a good thing.

One more reason for not giving criminal code status to animal abuse laws is the fact that every police force in the State would then have to enforce those laws and, in the process, might be distracted from things like homeland security or the pursuit of murderers, rapists, thieves, and drug dealers. Animal rights advocates, however, rarely show the slightest concern for the welfare of humans.

Another task force recommendation would ban chaining or tethering dogs for any reason. The next obvious step is to ban keeping them on a leash. Some dogs, though not the ones I know, need to be tethered. Even some dogs, if they could speak, would tell you this. However, they can only bark. They’re dogs, not humans.

The task force also wants state regulations that would permit people to create--get ready--free roaming, neutered feral (wild) cat colonies “to reduce euthanizing unwanted cats.” I am not sure how one goes about neutering a wild cat, but such details are of little concern to the task force. What is important is that the crazy old lady at the end of the street who feeds or keeps 30, 40 or 50 cats will be free to do so. Remember to stay down wind from her house.

It gets better or worse, depending on your point of view. The task force wants to make it a “mandatory duty” for veterinarians and everyone involved in animal care to report animal cruelty. This would put such behavior, despicable as it is, on a par with child abuse, a criminal act that most people believe is of far greater importance. Here again, law enforcement authorities would have to divert their personnel from crimes of considerably more significance.

And did I mention the task force wants to require towns to offer animal control services 24 hours a day, seven days a week? If you think property taxes are high now, just watch them rise if this recommendation becomes law. More than 120,000 stray animals are picked up annually from the streets of New Jersey. Animal shelters are filled to over-flowing, and, yes, most end up being euthanized because they will never be adopted.

The State’s Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection recently announced that bear hunters would be banned from all parks and wildlife management areas under the control of the DEP. New Jersey held its first bear hunt in 33 years last year to cull the estimated 3,200 bears roaming the most densely populated State in America. This year, though, DEP Commissioner, Bradley Campbell, has refused to process more than 3,000 applications filed by hunters. What is his and fellow animal rights advocates’ answer to the problem? A bear birth control program. You just cannot make up stuff like this. A longer bear-hunting season will have the same effect and actually put money into the State’s coffers. The ban is being challenged in the courts.

None of this even begins to deal with the estimated 170,000 deer that freely roam the State, a source of endless auto accidents that kill the deer and, occasionally, drivers and passengers. It doesn’t touch on the thousands of federally protected Canadian Geese that befoul parks, golf courses, and other campus settings.

I have no doubt that the departing Governor’s Task Force on Animal Welfare will spawn a raft of very bad legislation to make life miserable for animal owners and others. As it is, without waiting for the full report, the State’s Health Department has added an Office of Animal Welfare to insure that the over-worked personnel at shelters be properly certified and a raft of inspectors be hired to monitor the shelters.

If some of these animal rights recommendations become law in New Jersey, you can be sure that advocates in every other State will seize upon that fact to introduce them in yours. Meanwhile, in California, the beloved and much protected cougars will continue to make dinner of the occasional jogger. The condors, a specie of vulture, which the federal government spent millions to “save”, will no doubt clean up the mess the cougars leave behind.

Canada’s Law:

The House of Commons of Canada

BILL C-17

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals, disarming a peace officer and other amendments) and the Firearms Act (technical amendments)

Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:

R.S., c. C-46

CRIMINAL CODE

1. The heading of Part V of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:

SEXUAL OFFENCES, PUBLIC MORALS, DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

2. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 182:

Cruelty to Animals

Killing or harming animals

182.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who

(a) causes or, being the owner, permits to be caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to an animal;

(b) kills an animal or, being the owner, permits an animal to be killed, brutally or viciously, regardless of whether the animal dies immediately;

(c) kills an animal without lawful excuse;

(d) without lawful excuse, poisons an animal, places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by an animal, administers an injurious drug or substance to an animal or, being the owner, permits anyone to do any of those things;

(e) in any manner encourages, promotes, arranges, assists at or receives money for the fighting or baiting of animals;

(f) trains an animal to fight other animals;

(g) builds, makes, maintains, keeps or allows to be built, made, maintained or kept a cockpit or any other arena for the fighting of animals on premises that he or she owns or occupies;

(h) promotes, arranges, conducts, assists in, receives money for or takes part in any meeting, competition, exhibition, pastime, practice, display or event at or in the course of which captive animals are liberated by hand, trap, contrivance or any other means for the purpose of being shot when they are liberated; or

(i) being the owner, occupier or person in charge of any premises, permits the premises or any part of the premises to be used in the course of an activity referred to in paragraph (e), (f) or (h).

Failing to provide adequate care

(2) Every one commits an offence who

(a) by a failure to exercise reasonable care or supervision of an animal causes it pain, suffering or injury;

(b) being the owner or the person having the custody or control of an animal, abandons it or fails to provide suitable and adequate food, water, air, shelter and care for it; or

(c) negligently injures an animal while it is being conveyed.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

Punishment

(4) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (2)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Order of prohibition or restitution

(5) The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose under subsection (3) or (4),

(a) make an order prohibiting the accused from owning, having the custody or control of or residing in the same premises as an animal during any period that the court considers appropriate but, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, for a minimum of five years; and

(b) on application of the Attorney General or on its own motion, order that the accused pay to a person or an organization that has taken care of an animal as a result of the commission of the offence the reasonable costs that the person or organization incurred in respect of the animal, if the costs are readily ascertainable.

Breach of order

(6) Every one who contravenes an order made under paragraph (5)(a) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Application

(7) Sections 740 to 741.2 apply, with the modifications that the circumstances require, to orders made under paragraph (5)(b).

Definition of ``animal''

( In subsections (1) to (7), ``animal'' means a vertebrate, other than a human being, and any other animal that has the capacity to feel pain.

3. The definition ``child'' in section 214 of the Act is repealed.

R.S., c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 38

4. Paragraph 264.1(1)(c) of the Act is replaced by the following:

(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal that is the property of any person.

5. The Act is amended by adding the following after section 270:

Disarming a peace officer

270.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, without the consent of a peace officer, takes or attempts to take a weapon that is in the possession of the peace officer when the peace officer is engaged in the execution of his or her duty.

Definition of ``weapon''

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1), ``weapon'' means any thing that is designed to be used to cause injury or death to, or to temporarily incapacitate, a person.

Punishment

(3) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1)

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 18 months.

R.S., c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11

6. Sections 274 and 275 of the Act are replaced by the following:

Corrobora-
tion not required

274. If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 212, 271, 272 or 273, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.

Rules respecting recent complaint abrogated

275. The rules relating to evidence of recent complaint are hereby abrogated with respect to offences under sections 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 and 159, subsections 160(2) and (3) and sections 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 and 273.

1992, c, 38, s. 2

7. The portion of subsection 276(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

Evidence of complainant's sexual activity

276. (1) In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 or 273, evidence that the complainant has engaged in sexual activity, whether with the accused or with any other person, is not admissible to support an inference that, by reason of the sexual nature of that activity, the complainant

R.S., c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 13

8. Section 277 of the Act is replaced by the following:

Reputation evidence

277. In proceedings in respect of an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 or 273, evidence of sexual reputation, whether general or specific, is not admissible for the purpose of challenging or supporting the credibility of the complainant.

9. The heading before section 444 and sections 444 to 447 of the Act are repealed.

R.S., c. 42 (4th Supp.), s. 2; 1996, c. 19, par. 70(j)

10. Section 462.47 of the French version of the Act is replaced by the following:

Nullité des actions contre les informateurs

462.47 Il est entendu que , sous réserve de l'article 241 de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu, aucune action ne peut être intentée contre une personne pour le motif qu'elle aurait révélé à un agent de la paix ou au procureur général des faits sur lesquels elle se fonde pour avoir des motifs raisonnables de soupçonner que des biens sont des produits de la criminalité ou pour croire qu'une autre personne a commis une infraction de criminalité organisée ou une infraction désignée ou s'apprête à le faire.

1997, c. 16, s 6(1)

11. Subsection 486(2.1) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Testimony outside courtroom

(2.1) Notwithstanding section 650, if an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1 , 155 or 159, subsection 160(2) or (3) or section 163.1, 170, 171, 172, 173, 210, 211, 212, 213, 266, 267, 268, 271, 272 or 273 and the complainant or any witness, at the time of the trial or preliminary inquiry, is under the age of eighteen years or is able to communicate evidence but may have difficulty doing so by reason of a mental or physical disability, the presiding judge or justice, as the case may be, may order that the complainant or witness testify outside the court room or behind a screen or other device that would allow the complainant or witness not to see the accused, if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the exclusion is necessary to obtain a full and candid account of the acts complained of from the complainant or witness.

1997, c. 23, s. 19

12. (1) Subsection 810.01(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Appearances

(2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

1997, c. 23, s. 19

(2) Subsection 810.01(6) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Variance of conditions

(6) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, the Attorney General or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

1993, c. 45, s. 11

13. (1) Subsection 810.1(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Appearances

(2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

1993, c. 45, s. 11

(2) Subsection 810.1(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Judge may vary recognizance

(4) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant or the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

1997, c. 17, s. 9(1)

14. (1) Subsection 810.2(2) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Appearances

(2) A provincial court judge who receives an information under subsection (1) may cause the parties to appear before a provincial court judge.

1997, c. 17, s. 9(1)

(2) Subsection 810.2(7) of the Act is replaced by the following:

Variance of conditions

(7) A provincial court judge may, on application of the informant, of the Attorney General or of the defendant, vary the conditions fixed in the recognizance.

1997, c. 18, s. 115

15. The portion of Form 11.1 of Part XXVIII of the French version of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

But this is linked through to the task force review in NJ.

Enforcement of Cruelty to Animals Sections of the Criminal Code

Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCAs") have statutory mandates under their provincial Animal Welfare Acts to prevent cruelty to animals.

Many provincial statutes designate SPCA Inspectors as peace officers entitled to exercise the powers of a police officer where an animal is in distress. A number of senior Inspectors have law enforcement backgrounds as ex-police officers or RCMP officers.

Inspectors are trained to investigate crimes, to lay charges and to assist crown counsel to prosecute cruelty offence cases.

Training is provided by the RCMP, other law enforcement agencies, provincial humane societies and seminars conducted by the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies.

In various provinces, SPCA Acts allow SPCA Inspectors to exercise the powers of a police officer, to obtain search warrants and to issue Orders requiring people to take such action as is necessary to relieve animals of distress. Inspectors may seize animals in distress, and where necessary may destroy or sell them.

CFHS has developed an Inspectors' Manual educating Inspectors on Criminal Code issues, including criminal law procedures, evidence gathering, laying of charges, Charter rights, how to deal with an accused offender, assisting in preparation for trial and the trial itself.

CFHS is preparing a Prosecutors' Manual in cooperation with crown attorneys and criminal lawyers, to provide to crown prosecutors relevant criminal cases and principles applicable to prosecution of crimes against animals.

Less than 1/3 of 1% of all animal abuse complaints go to court. (See Enforcement Chart).

In 1993, the Alberta SPCA had investigations involving 61,734 animals and 21 court cases.

In 1997 - 98, 362 criminal charges were laid across Canada. Only 167 accused were found guilty (46%), 167 accused had their cases stayed or withdrawn (46%) and 8% were disposed of by other methods.

In 1996 - 97, there were 645 charges laid throughout Canada. 196 persons were held to be guilty (30%), 190 cases were stayed or withdrawn (29%) and 251 were acquitted (39%).

During 1995 - 97, Ontario SPCA inspectors/agents handled 12,824 - 15,827 complaints of animal abuse each year, giving rise to 35 - 52 charges per year and 11,000 - 16,000 animals removed from owners.

In Ontario there were 28 Inspectors and 350 Agents in 1998.

SPCAs have lost confidence in the ability of the criminal law system to properly address crimes against animals. Amended provisions of the Criminal Code are expected to raise these cases from summary convictions to hybrid offences, which will be treated much more seriously by Crown Attorneys and judges.

SPCAs often incur substantial costs to prosecute criminal cases. In several cases costs have amounted to $30,000 - $60,000. Cost recovery for veterinary care and sheltering of abused animals would assist SPCAs in carrying out their mandate.

In reading the Animals and the Criminal Code for Canada. The documents the task force in NJ is reviewing now is suppose to be based on this 'success story'.

The lanuage for hunting and meat livestock is open to interpretation. Our Canadian neighbors seem to have given themselves the opportunity to go Vegan. And now NJ joins them.

>>>>
It is a defence to any of the offences against animals that the accused acted with legal justification or excuse or with "colour of right." What constitutes a sufficient excuse or justification has to be decided on the facts of each case, and "colour of right" means an honest belief in a state of facts which, if true, would be a legal justification of excuse. For example, it has been held to be justified to kill an animal that is attacking or threatening to attack another animal (R. v. Fusell, 1920), but the tracking and killing of a dog that had frightened the accused's sheep without attacking and then left and ceased to pose any danger was not justifiable (R. v. Etherington, 1963). Statutory authorization also constitutes legal justification, so it is not an offence for example to kill an animal in accordance with provincial hunting regulations. <<<<<