Cruelty reviewed.
Pain which may otherwise be considered as unnecessary and unreasonable may apparently be justified by the purpose for which the act causing the pain was carried out. When deciding whether or not cruelty has occurred, the court may consider, inter alia: the element of sport associated with the incident; measures taken to alleviate the pain and suffering; whether the infliction of the pain was justified and lawfully excused in that it was inflicted in the protection of personal property or of other animals or persons, who were actually being attacked or under real threat of imminent attack when the act causing the pain took place. In order to be lawfully excused on these grounds, the measures taken to protect personal safety and property must be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances of the actual or threatened attack; local custom and belief; the care, skill and competence with which the act was performed; an honest belief held by the doer of the act that the act would lead to benefits to the animal, to the owner of the animal or to society generally. These criteria indicate that cruelty occurs when pain has been caused by an omission to remedy or alleviate the effects of a positive act, by the doing of the act, where the act or omission has been done intentionally or as the result of negligence, or where the pain is unnecessary and unjustified and the doer of the act knows that the act is unnecessary and unjustifiable.
D000822:Animal Husbandry / Q000266:history*; D000818:Animals; D001315:Australia; D049673:History, 20th Century; D007886:Legislation, Veterinary / Q000266:history*; D010146:Pain / Q000662:veterinary*; D014730:Veterinary Medicine / Q000266:history*