Salukifan Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Link to Story A southern Tasmanian man has been banned from owning pets because of the cruelty he inflicted on three dogs. The Magistrates Court in Hobart has that heard when an RSPCA officer visited the man's New Norfolk home in August he could not initially tell how many dogs he had because their fur was so long and matted. The officer said that as a result, the three dogs belonging to Leigh James Clarke had difficulty walking. A vet report tendered to the court said one of the dogs had an abscess in its ear and another an eye problem. Both conditions had been left untreated. The vet said the dogs would have suffered significantly and over a long period because of their health issues and lack of grooming. Magistrate Michael Daly fined 53-year-old Clarke $400 and banned him from ever owning domestic animals. The three dogs have since been groomed, treated and have found new homes Well done Magistrate Daly! A life ban on animal owning should be a standard sentence for anyone found guilty of cruelty to animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melzawelza Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Wow, you hardly ever hear of such a ban. Well done to the Magistrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dame Aussie Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 Wow! At last some sense!!! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirislin Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 I hope they can enforce it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chezy Posted November 22, 2013 Share Posted November 22, 2013 hopefully more will do same now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 A southern Tasmanian man has been banned from owning pets because of the cruelty he inflicted on three dogs. The Magistrates Court in Hobart has that heard when an RSPCA officer visited the man's New Norfolk home in August he could not initially tell how many dogs he had because their fur was so long and matted. What, did he think there were two dogs hiding under one matted coat? What a bizarre quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiecuddles Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Maybe they were all piled in to a bed area Anne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maeby Fünke Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Yes, yes, yes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 (edited) It sounds like a bit of sensationalism if you ask me. Edited November 25, 2013 by ~Anne~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving my Oldies Posted November 25, 2013 Share Posted November 25, 2013 Well, I for one will be sending Magistrate Michael Daly a Christmas Card and telling him why. Let's all do the same...... unless of course, that is being sensationalist. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YvonneM Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I hope they can enforce it. + 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosetta Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 They may have been kept together in a cage making it difficult to define them. Considering the outcome of the court case I doubt if there was any sensationalism in the report. At last a bit of justice for an animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Anne~ Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 It was reported in the media. You're not reading a transcript of the actual case. You bet there was sensationalism. As for the end result showing the seriousness of the crime.... what do you make of the 5 year sentence handed out for the death of an innocent man king hit and killed as he walked along minding his own business then? The sentence doesn't always give an indication of size or seriousness of a crime. I'm happy that there is one less person capable of harm that has the ability to own a dog but I still stand by my sensationalism comments. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandgrubber Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 It sounds like a bit of sensationalism if you ask me. More like bad writing. Sensationalism makes the meaning palpable. This journo muddied meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 hmm, given that it's ABC news (rather than the tele or SMH), it could literally have been what the RSPCA officer said, who could have been exaggerating a bit maybe?... either way, glad the poor little poppets have a better chance at life now, well done magistrate Daly. Hope they can enforce this. the before and after photos from the article: (what a cutie!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris the Rebel Wolf Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 What a relief one magistrate has handed down a fitting sentence, so rarely seen in justice for animal cruelty cases. Hopefully this will set a prescient. People who abuse their animals so badly do not deserve them. Well done Michael Daly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loving my Oldies Posted December 7, 2013 Share Posted December 7, 2013 It was reported in the media. You're not reading a transcript of the actual case. You bet there was sensationalism. As for the end result showing the seriousness of the crime.... what do you make of the 5 year sentence handed out for the death of an innocent man king hit and killed as he walked along minding his own business then? The sentence doesn't always give an indication of size or seriousness of a crime. I'm happy that there is one less person capable of harm that has the ability to own a dog but I still stand by my sensationalism comments. :) Now you are being sensationalist . There is no comparison so why on earth try to make one. There is a topic on this and virtually everyone agrees that it was a shocking case. The case has gathered Australia wide interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now