The court convicted the person of neglecting and ill-treating cats and a goat
The Supreme Court upheld a conviction and sentence for breaching an animal ownership ban, rejecting arguments on intent, indigenous rights, and sentencing fairness.
In 2017, the court convicted the applicant on five charges related to the neglect and ill-treatment of cats and a goat. As part of the sentence, the court imposed a five-year disqualification order, preventing ownership or control of animals under s. 169 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
In May 2020, authorities found multiple animals on the applicant's property, leading to a conviction under s. 169B(1) for breaching the disqualification order. The District Court sentenced the applicant to two years of intensive supervision and ordered a $3,000 reparation payment. The court also imposed an additional five-year disqualification order. The Court of Appeal upheld both the conviction and sentence, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
The applicant presented three main arguments in challenging the conviction. First, she argued that the District Court and Court of Appeal misinterpreted the required mens rea (criminal intent) under s. 169B. The applicant claimed the prosecution needed to prove an intentional breach of the disqualification order. While acknowledging awareness of the order, the applicant argued that she managed the animals through a trust structure, allowed others to care for them, and believed that animals could not be legally owned, which negated intent.
Second, the applicant challenged the Court of Appeal's conclusion that domestic animals are not taonga (treasured possessions) within a Māori worldview. The argument asserted that this interpretation contradicted indigenous perspectives.
Third, she claimed that the conviction and disqualification order violated rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi), He Whakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence), and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The applicant asserted that, as tangata whenua (Indigenous person) and kaitiaki (guardian), the ruling unlawfully restricted the ability to exercise kaitiakitanga over animals considered taonga.
Regarding sentencing, the applicant argued that the two-year supervision order was excessive. She also asserted that the Court of Appeal erred in refusing to consider a cultural report as background information. Additionally, the applicant argued that the court should have limited the disqualification order to stray cats and goats if necessary.
The Supreme Court found no substantial miscarriage of justice and ruled that the appeal did not raise issues of general or public importance. Even if the court accepted the argument on mens rea, it noted that the evidence supported conviction under s. 169B based on exercising authority over or being in charge of animals.
The court also declined to address arguments related to the Treaty, He Whakaputanga, and UNDRIP, stating that this was not an appropriate case for such matters. Furthermore, it found no sentencing errors warranting intervention.
As a result, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
