A man convicted of animal neglect after a dog's collar grew tight around its neck has won an appeal on a ruling that banned him from owning all but one dog for five years.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
On March 4, 2016, RSPCA inspectors responded to a complaint about the dog on Shane Keir's Pialligo property.
At the property the inspectors found a male cattle-dog cross tethered by a chain and an "extremely" tight chain collar.
Under the collar, which could not be lifted or moved around the dog's neck, was a malodorous and infected wound.
Keir pleaded guilty to an offence under animal welfare laws of failing to take reasonable steps to alleviate pain.
He admitted he was the owner of the dog, but said he had been in hospital for three weeks. He said the dog, which had been dumped, was being cared for by his staff and had put on weight, causing the chain to tighten.
While the dog had food and water he had only checked on the dog from a distance and not noticed the chain become tight.
He had owned the 100 acre property for more than 10 years.
It had 30 cattle, 39 horses and one other dog. A vet who had known Keir for 25 years and treated his animals said he had "never known Shane to be cruel to his animals".
Keir was convicted of the offence and ordered to pay $2,800 to the government, to complete 75 hours of community service and was banned from buying or keeping a dog for five years.
He was allowed to keep the one dog he already had.
On Wednesday, Justice David Mossop of the ACT Supreme Court upheld the man's appeal on the animal ban.
Canberra law says that in order to impose an animal ban a court has to be satisfied that, unless such a ban is made, the person is likely to commit more offences of animal cruelty.
Without meeting that threshold, a ban cannot be made.
Justice Mossop found on Thursday that for several reasons, including the unusual nature of the law itself, the sentencing magistrate had not satisfied herself of that threshold.
But even if she had, the judge said, there was not enough evidence before the court to establish it was "likely" Keir would commit another offence on another dog.
Noting the man did not give evidence about why he treated the dog that way, or his attitude to the crime, it was "not possible to say that the risk of future offending conduct was negligible."
"However, the absence of any past convictions for similar offences and the evidence in the form of the letter from the veterinarian as to his treatment of other animals, it was difficult to assess the magnitude of that risk," Justice Mossop said.
The judge resentenced the man to a good behaviour order. Keir was also ordered to pay reparations and a fine.
