Roberts in Tasmania faces cruelty charges

[Export News Tasmania]

DAVID KILLICK

March 16, 2009 02:36pm

THIRTY-FIVE sheep at a Hobart saleyard appeared to have been left without food for days, a court has heard.

Agribusiness Roberts Limited and the company's southern livestock manager William John Denholm appeared in the Hobart Magistrates' court today.

Both have pleaded not guilty to management of an animal likely to result in pain and suffering and performing an act which causes suffering to an animal.

Prosecutor Steve Driver told the court the prosecution case was that the sheep had been left in a holding pen at the Bridgewater saleyards for at least five days in February last year.

He said the incident appeared to be have been caused by a "misunderstanding" and no malice was alleged.

Department of Primary Industries and Water animal health and welfare manager Michael Middleton testified the sheep were emaciated and lethargic when he examined them at the request of police.

Although water was present, physical examinations and blood tests showed the sheep had not been fed for some time, he said.

"The clinical picture and the laboratory picture were both entirely consistent with the fact that the sheep hadn't been fed for several days," Mr Middleton told the court.

"The area the sheep were in was completely bare. It was devoid of vegetation, it was comprised of bare dirt and rock. There was no vegetation or any remnant of animal feed of any kind."

The hearing, before Magistrate Michael Daly, continues.

http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/03/16/61575_tasmania-news.html

[born_for_freedom]

This shows that saleyards fail to manage the animals and fail to have systems in place to show they can ensure the animals they have on their premises are looked after.

How often does this happen at other yards?  Why does this get to this stage? Why are the saleyards permitted to hold animals in their yards for days without clear proof to regulators that they have provided food and water to the animals? The animal welfare legislation is poorly written and allows all sorts of cruelty to go unchallenged.

Hope the court finds these people guilty, thus in favour of the animals and kicks Agribusiness Roberts Limited and the company's southern livestock manager's arse.

[Export News Tasmania]

While the system in Tasmania has unqualified police prosecutors facing expensive barristers, nothing will change for the animals. The expensive mouthpieces which these abusers seem to be always able to afford, impugn the character of the people who expose the abuse and get away with it with impunity from the prosecution and the magistrate, then they get their lowlife clients off on technicalities. That's expected to be the outcome in this case too.

[Export News Tasmania]

COMMENTS in the Mercury

It seems extraordinary that the only person who tried to help these starving animals is now apparently being blamed for their condition. Since when has the law demanded a member of the public risk their personal safety by confronting the perpetrators of animal cruelty?

Posted by: Heather Kennedy of Melbourne 2:44pm today

DISGUSTING these people should face charges. There is no excuse for cruelty to animals and our courts need to step up and start charging offenders accordingly. Muelsing is going to be gone in a few years and those of us who continue to fight for animal rights must do so. It all makes a difference.
 
Posted by: Felicity 12:34pm today

I might be missing something here, but why would a member of the public be reporting animal abuse to the perpetrator? Such matters are for the appropriate authorities to deal with.

Posted by: Patrick Jones 12:00am today

It's a sad state of affairs that animal abusers can afford expensive mouthpieces, who use dirty tricks to discredit the animal advocates who expose them, while the animals only have unqualified police prosecutors to defend them. It is also sad to note that this is not the first time Roberts Limited has faced cruelty charges, and probably won't be the last. There have been numerous instances of sheep left behind after sales, and they are "curfewed" (no food or water in sheep-speak) for an extended period before being loaded onto trucks, then "curfewed" at saleyards, and again before their ongoing journey, which could be as far as interstate. If they were dogs and cats the public wouldn't stand for it. Sheep suffer as much as any other animal from food and water deprivation, as Dr Middleton has noted.

Posted by: Nicky of Hobart 10:29pm Tuesday

Just to clarify David Killick's story about my not reporting the state of these sheep to Roberts ... I have been chased and harassed by Roberts staff and transporters at the saleyard, and I did not want to exacerbate that situation. Had I been allowed in court to fully answer that question, I would also have pointed out that animals in the saleyard and their welfare are the responsibility of the saleyard operator (Roberts), not members of the public. I reported the matter to the authorities with the power to intervene, having no faith in Roberts to do so. This is by no means the only such incident; at the same time, there were seven other sick sheep hidden in a bare back paddock for whom I also had to seek intervention, and as recently as last September, a number of sheep in a paddock outside the gate, also without food, ill and unable to stand. Photographs and a story will be posted at www.stoptac.org in the next few days.

Posted by: Suzanne Cass of Bridgewater 10:02pm Tuesday

Maybe no "malice" was involved, but such incidents go some way to demonstrating the callous perception of animals some producers have. Presumably they would not "forget" to feed their children?

Posted by: Marian Hussenbux of Britain 7:49pm Tuesday

Max, there is also a long history of neglected animals being left at the saleyards but it usually goes unreported.

Posted by: Jon Ayling of Ridgeway 11:46am Tuesday

The very reason Roberts were not considered when selling my house. There is a history of this.

Posted by: max castle of Hobart 5:18pm Monday