Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Haredown Whippets

Life Ban On Owning Pets Handed Out In Tasmanian Court

17 posts in this topic

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! :cheer: A life ban on animal owning should be a standard sentence for anyone found guilty of cruelty to animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Anne~   

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Anne~   

It sounds like a bit of sensationalism if you ask me.

Edited by ~Anne~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rosetta   

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. :thumbsup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
~Anne~   

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. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like a bit of sensationalism if you ask me.

More like bad writing. Sensationalism makes the meaning palpable. This journo muddied meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panto   

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:

5110804-3x2-340x227.jpg

5110808-3x2-340x227.jpg (what a cutie!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×