Timely Warning With Summer Comming.

[asal]

Even leaving your dog in the car with all the windows down can get you reported as a friend and I discovered one day when we decided to get a macca's. it wasnt a hot day, the car was in shade but the police were walking around our cars checking our dogs, think the only reason they were still sitting there checking out the law was they were both cattledogs. when I asked how fast could they get there when ive called the police its taken hours turned out they were doing a macca's stop too.

so beware, better to one go and the other stay with the dog/dogs or use the drive through. They said even with all the windows down its against the law.

https://www.rspcawa.asn.au/news/2014-09-19-breed-enthusiast-loses-dog-and-receives-35000-in-penalties-for-dog-left-in-hot-car

Edited August 19, 2016 by asal

[The Spotted Devil]

RSPCA doesn't make laws. Those are recommendations. Where is the state legislation that is law please? I did a quick search and what IS against the law is leaving windows down in an unattended vehicle. Nothing to do with the dog but the risk of car theft.

So there is an attempt to stop people leaving dogs and children in cars on hot days (when people have no idea how quickly the temp can rise) and they're just do gooder nutters? Fair enough then.

[Two Best Dogs!]

I was wondering what the lady in your link had for a set up and my heart stopped when I read about it

38c day, in the average car?! The dog needed to be treated for heat stroke?!?

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/dog-breeder-adele-culverwell-left-dog-in-car-as-she-shopped-at-carousel-on-38c-day/news-story/95e7704c24d972f695ae657cf21ef8ca

????

Only way I'd leave my dog in the car on a 38c day is if I had one of those big white dog trailers with the fans and air con.

[Sheridan]

So, there's been posts about this dog on FB and it doesn't seem to be as clear cut as the RSPCA has made out. I am told there are questions being asked in the WA parliament about this dog. Apparently the RSPCA has been ordered by the courts and the relevant Minister to return the dog to her owner and have not only refused to do so, but have sent the dog out of the state. I don't know the circumstances behind the order to the return the dog.

[Two Best Dogs!]

Where? All I could find was that the lady attempted to appeal the decision and the court upheld the verdict. Does anyone know where to find WA court decisions?

http://www.coastlive.com.au/perth-appeal-against-animal-cruelty-conviction-thrown-out/

The 67-year-old applied to the Supreme Court to appeal the animal cruelty charges, but that appeal was dismissed this week.

“It was obvious that Roxy was at risk of harm by being left for some time in a vehicle on a very hot day…and the dog was distressed for some time on the evidence of the witnesses who observed her at the Carousel Shopping Centre,” Justice Michael Corboy said.

Justice Corboy found the RSPCA prosecution was “sound” and the original ruling “fair”, despite Culverwell claiming she was made a “scapegoat” by the conviction.

Additionally seems she was "only" fined $5k for leaving the dog in her vehicle, the other $30k being legal costs

[asal]

So, there's been posts about this dog on FB and it doesn't seem to be as clear cut as the RSPCA has made out. I am told there are questions being asked in the WA parliament about this dog. Apparently the RSPCA has been ordered by the courts and the relevant Minister to return the dog to her owner and have not only refused to do so, but have sent the dog out of the state. I don't know the circumstances behind the order to the return the dog.

Thats right, I remember reading that, she said they had lied in court. But no one will believe they would lie. well unless you have learned it yourself.

Had a dog taken when no one was home yet according the the letter from Richard Amery the decision to remove the dog was taken after a conversation ? Yet no one was there neither the owner or the dogs vet?

yet this was the reason given to Richard Amery the then Minister for Agriculture for the seizure without any warning?

Minister for Agriculture

Minister for Land and Water Conservation

(99541)

Dear Ms H 14 JUN 2001

Thank you for your letter of 30 April 2001 regarding the seizure of your dog ‘S……’ by the RSPCA. This whole incident has clearly been distressing for you. However, it would seem that the appearance of your dog breeding establishment and several of your animals attracted the attention of at least one other breeder who was concerned about the reputation of the industry, the conduct of your business and the welfare of some of your dogs.

The RSPCA is obliged to investigate genuine complaints regarding animal welfare and to pursue what they believe to be the most reasonable course of action given the circumstances.

You indicated that two dogs appeared to be in less than satisfactory condition. Without proper records of your own or your veterinarian, showing that S…… was under veterinary care, the inspectors could only rely on their own judgement. In this case Inspector Donnelly decided that S…….’s best interests would be served by a proper veterinary examination and diagnostic work up at the RSPCA shelter.

Whilst this whole incident has been aggravated by an unfortunate sequence of events and poor communication on both sides, I see no need for continuing bitterness over this issue. S….. has been returned and has now undergone a proper diagnostic work up, you have not been charged with any offences, and as a gesture of good will the RSPCA has removed kennel charges from your bill

I do not feel that the RSPCA has acted outside the law or unreasonably in this matter. If you conduct your business as outlined in the

Code of Practice for dog breeding establishments you will have nothing to fear from further visits from RSPCA inspectors.

Thanks you for expressing your concerns.

Yours sincerely

RICHARD AMERY MP

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTURE

MINISTER FOR LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION

LEVEL 17 “PARKVIEW” 157 LIVERPOOL STREET SYDNEY NSW 2000 AUSTRALIA

PO BOX K220 HAYMARKET 1240 AUSTRALIA

TELEPHONE 02 9372 0123 FACSIMILE 02 9372 0199 INTERNET http://www.minister.agric.nsw.gov.auEMAIL-ministers.office@agric.nsw.gov.au "

the animal in question had food, water and not one of the barrage of tests done on him were listed as requiring veterinary attention, let alone immediate veterinary attention, in the very Code of Ethics the Minster recommended be adhered too? A query to that effect did not elicit a further reply though.

As for the poor communication? The dogs vet rang every single day of the dogs 13 day incarceration demanding the return of the perfectly healthy dog. Somehow I suspect the Minister was not appraised of that either.

Any solicitor reading that letter would have to agree the powers of seizure prior to 2001 are already pretty broad even then, the more powers have been applied for many times because they cannot act when an animal has food and water. This letter seems to be at odds to that claim we still hear?

Edited August 20, 2016 by asal

[Jed]

There seems to be more to this tale than has been published -- apparently the entire story is to surface soon and the RSPCA has been instructed to return the dog -- which they had previously failed to do.

If you google Thistle, there are links to the higher court decisions. I have read them, but have now lost them

[The Spotted Devil]

I can only find this:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/30671285/court-rejects-appeal-in-dog-cruelty-case/#page1

Court rejects appeal in dog cruelty case

Tim Clarke - The West Australian on January 28, 2016, 12:40 am

WA’s highest court has confirmed leaving a dog in a car on a hot day is animal cruelty after the first person prosecuted for the offence failed to have her conviction thrown out.

Adele Culverwell, 67, was convicted in 2014 after she locked her dog Roxy in a car on a 38C day.

Members of the public called the RSPCA after spotting the three-year-old borzoi in the back of a panel van outside Carousel Shopping Centre in December 2012.

Roxy was found to have symptoms of heatstroke, including an elevated heart rate, hyperthermia, distress, hyper-salivation, excessive panting and dehydration after a ranger removed her from the car.

Magistrate Richard Huston ruled the action constituted cruelty, fining Culverwell $5000 with costs of $30,000 in legal fees and care for the dog, saying she showed a “complete and utter absence of remorse”. Roxy was removed from Culverwell’s care and rehomed.

RSCPA WA chief inspector Amanda Swift said it sent a message to all dog owners about the danger of leaving dogs in hot cars.

Culverwell asked the Supreme Court for leave to appeal on 16 grounds, claiming the RSPCA made her a “scapegoat” and the prosecution “amounted to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut”.

She claimed the magistrate made several errors in his findings and the prosecution was flawed.

In dismissing her appeal, Justice Michael Corboy ruled the RSPCA prosecution had been sound and the conviction and fine were fair.

“It was obvious that Roxy was at risk of harm by being left for some time in a vehicle on a very hot day...and the dog was distressed for some time on the evidence of the witnesses who observed her at the Carousel Shopping Centre,” Justice Corboy said.

“In my view, it was open to the magistrate to have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the charge alleged against her. That conclusion is based on all of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

Edited August 20, 2016 by The Spotted Devil

[Two Best Dogs!]

If you google Thistle, there are links to the higher court decisions. I have read them, but have now lost them

I could only find the WA Supreme Court judgements (part 1 and part 2 - not sure the difference between part 1 and 2...) where the appeal was dismissed?

222 The fine imposed by the magistrate was towards the lower end of the range of fines prescribed for a breach of s 19 of the Act. It was obvious that Roxy was at risk of harm by being left for some time in a vehicle on a very hot day. The risk was immediately apparent to Ms Zuraszek and Ms Weiman. The dog was distressed as evidenced by its behaviour and appearance and by the symptoms described by Dr Keall. The dog was distressed for some time on the evidence of the witnesses who observed her at the Carousel shopping centre. That is consistent with the opinions expressed by Dr Keall and Dr O'Connell regarding the symptoms and nature of heatstroke.

223 The magistrate noted that the appellant had shown no remorse or insight into her offending: 'perhaps the most troubling aspect of the offending is the complete and utter absence of any remorse' and 'even today, the accused seems to be in denial of having done anything wrong' (19 September 2014, ts 196). His Honour gave detailed consideration to the sentencing factors prescribed by s 6 of the Sentencing Act 2004 (WA) and found that general and personal deterrence were significant factors in sentencing the appellant.

224 In my view, the fine imposed by the magistrate was within the range of fines that represented a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion having regard to the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's offending, the appellant's personal circumstances and the sentences that have been imposed in other cases for animal cruelty (including those referred to by Hall J in Holding v Parkin).

I can't say reading the appeal is making me sympathetic to the lady. 38 degree day, only partial shade, over 4 hours. It's quite upsetting to read even in 'lawyer' speak. The bit I quoted from the appeal dismissal is the bit I'm currently most troubled by - the lack of remorse or acknowledgement on the danger the dog was in

Is it an upcoming case? I'm not sure how to find those. Googling her name doesn't come up with much except the news articles and the occasional dog show.