Domestic Animals Act 2009 - Math Problem Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Question 1 Introduction The Domestic Animals (Control and Curfew) Act 2009 is one that was passed to ensure that domestic animals do not attack Australian wildlife especially at night when they are left to roam outside. With the enactment of the act, domestic animals would not be allowed to roam at night from 8.00 pm and 6.00 am when most of the killings could occur with pet owners being required to confine them in an enclosed space during these hours. In addition, all pet owners are required to register their pets with the Domestic Animals Management Authority. Under the new Act, guard animals are not referred to as domestic animals and therefore domestic animals that are trained to protect any commercial premises are exempted from this new legislation. As such, George has not committed any offences under this Act since the pet that owns is a goose that is meant to alert him when anyone enters the yard that surrounds his house. His pet goose is therefore a guard animal considering that he trained it to make a honking noise when it spots an intruder entering the yard. Additionally, George works from home which qualifies his home as a commercial premise since he carries out his architectural work from here. It is worth noting that the goose has clipped wings which ensure that it cannot fly and that it is kept in a securely fenced yard being allowed to run freely within this space all day night. This is important bearing the fact that it as bought with the intention of it being a guard animal. By allowing the goose to run around the yard surrounding the house, George is sure that it will be able to spot an intruder at any time of day or night and alert him by making the honking noise so as to prevent the occurrence of a burglary ay his home which is also his office. By keeping the goose in a securely fenced yard, George complies with the Act since he keeps it within an enclosed space. The goose can only roam around within this space only and cannot go out into the street as the fence will prevent it from doing so. It also has clipped wings hence it cannot fly over the fence into the street as well. The Act requires that all pets are kept within an enclosed space from 8.00 pm in the evening to 6.00 am in the morning since most of the attacks on the Australian wildlife occur during this time span. Conversely, a guard animal is not considered to be a domestic animal as per this Act and therefore the goose pet that George owns is exempt from the legislation. The Act requires people who have pets to have them registered with the Domestic Animals Management Authority by 26 April 2010. Accidentally, this day falls on the ANZAC day which is a public holiday and all public offices remain closed on such days. Being the deadline, all pet owners are expected to have registered their pets by this date but being a public holiday, all activities that are to be done on that day are carried forward to the following day which is 27 April 2010. It is on this day that George lodges all of the required paperwork for registration of his pet goose. The coincidence of 26 April 2010 being a public holiday in effect pushes the deadline for registration with the Domestic Animals Management Authority to the following day which is 27 April 2010. As such, George still registers his pet on time as per the Act and therefore does not commit any offence by filling the appropriate paper work on 27 April 2010. It is also well indicated on the office widow of the Domestic Animals Management Authority that it will remain closed on 26 April 2010 as the day is a public holiday and reopen the following day. Being a commercial premise, George’s home is open to his clients who come to him seeking assistance with their architectural designs from George. Visitors will come to see George both for personal and business needs as his home is also his office from where he runs his architectural work. As visitors, not all of those who come to see George are aware of the pet goose that he keeps as well as the purpose for keeping that goose. In addition, in the event that these visitors do not keep their own pets, they may not understand better or adhere to the Domestic Animals (Control and Curfew) Act 2009 as George or any other pet owner would. These visitors would therefore not take seriously the implications of not following that Act as pet owners would and therefore could cause harm to the Australian wildlife due to their actions. Such is the case that occurred on Tuesday 4 May 2010 when a visitor who came to see George left the gate to George’s yard open and the goose escaped into a park across the road. Since the goose is allowed to run around the yard, it could have easily left the yard when it found the gate to the yard open. With the gate open, the goose went in to the park across the road and attacked a sulphur crested cockatoo which is an Australian native bird and therefore part of the Australian wildlife. The attack on the sulphur crested cockatoo is an offence as per the Domestic Animals (Control and Curfew) Act 2009 as the bird is an Australian native bird which is protected by the new legislation. Despite the attack, George is not liable for this offence as he was not the one who left the gate to his own yard open allowing the goose to go out and across the park where it attacked the sulphur crested cockatoo. George had already taken the necessary precautions to ensure that his pet goose was to stay within control by ensuring that it had clipped wings preventing it from flying over the fence in to the street. He also ensured that his yard as securely fenced in manner that was difficult for the goose to pass through the fence and in to the street outside. The intention that led George to purchase the pet goose was the increasing number of burglaries within the Toowong suburb of Brisbane and therefore his pet was not a domestic animal but a guard animal. After making the purchase, George went on to train the goose on how it would alert him when anyone walked in to the yard so that George would be aware and respond appropriately as need be. It is therefore evident that George bought the goose with the intention of it being a guard animal right from the start as opposed to being a domestic animal and therefore the goose is exempted from the Domestic Animals (Control and Curfew) Act 2009. In addition, George has complied with all requirements of the new legislation by registering the goose with the Domestic Animals Management Authority as per the deadline set within the Domestic Animals (Control and Curfew) Act 2009. Despite his pet goose being a guard animal and therefore exempted from the Act, George, as the keeper of the pet, ensures that his goose does not attack any Australian wildlife by limiting its movements within the securely fenced yard and clipping its wings to prevent it from flying over the fence. As a guard animal, the goose should be allowed to roam around the yard as its purpose is to alert George when a person enters his yard. It is therefore important that the goose is allowed to go around the yard since a person intending to commit a burglary will not necessarily enter the targeted premises from the front entrance. The goose should therefore be able to go around the house from time to time so as to ensure maximum surveillance around George’s home. It is also important to note that George uses his home as his office as well and therefore runs it as a commercial premise which increase the risk of a burglary occurring. With such a threat evident, it is in the best interests of George to find a means that will enable him to be aware of any movements around his yard for security purposes. The pet goose that he purchases is trained to make a honking noise when it spots anyone entering the yard to ensure that it carries out its intended purpose as required by the owner. The concerned neighbour who makes a complaint with the Domestic Animals Management Authority does so with the best interests of protecting Australian wildlife but the case in point is an exception as the pet involved is a guard animal which is exempted from the new legislation and restricting the movement of the goose, day or night, would beat the logic of why George bought the goose in the first pace. It is therefore very clear that George does not commit any offences under the Domestic Animals (Control and Curfew) Act 2009. Question 2 Judge Gandalf of the Queensland District Court should follow the Legolas v Gimli case, where the High Court of Australia ruled that damages for loss of future opportunity were not recoverable. This is because the ruling was made by the High Court of Australia is the highest superior court with appellate jurisdiction over the rest of the courts in Australia. As such, it is the most superior appellate court over the rest of the courts in Australia and hears any cases that were disputed by any of the parties to a legal suit from the supreme courts in the states. The Australian legal system follows the principle of precedents when judges are making decisions pertaining to cases that are similar to others that were ruled by a superior court. The judge in a lower court follows the rulings and decisions made in a previous case similar to the one at hand in order to arrive at a ruling. The precedents from higher courts than the presiding court are considered to be binding authorities and therefore their decisions should be followed. The principle of precedents is a major characteristic of common law which is practiced in Australia. As such, decisions in any pending cases are usually informed by the decisions that were made in previously settled cases. Based on the doctrine of stare decisis, which is Latin meaning to stand by the things already decided, precedents helps in maintaining consistency within the law of a country as decisions made by higher courts are used to make decisions in the lower courts (Martin, 2005). Following the principle of precedents, Justice Gandalf should follow the Legolas v Gimli case, to ensure consistency within the law. The High Court of Australia is the highest superior court in Australia and therefore the highest binding authority (Blackshield, Coper & Williams, 2001). All other lower courts are expected to making rulings that are consistent with those that the High Court passes. The High Court can overturn a ruling made by a lower court but the lower court can not overturn the ruling made by the High Court. In the Legolas v Gimli case, the Full Court of the High Court of Australia ruled that damages for loss of future opportunity were not recoverable and therefore the defendant was not to pay the plaintiff for any damages resulting from the loss of future advertising opportunities. From the case at hand, the plaintiff has endorsed a new line of clothing that is rather very cheap resulting in the loss of future advertising opportunities for the plaintiff. The defendant has agreed to have used the images of the plaintiff in an illegal manner within some newspaper advertisement. The defendant has agreed to pay the damages arising from his illegal use of the plaintiff’s images but disputes paying any damages arising from the loss of future advertising opportunities. Since the Legolas v Gimli case has similar facts, Judge Gandalf should base his decision on whether damages for loss of future opportunity are recoverable by the plaintiff based on the ruling that the High Court made. As such, his ruling should be that damages for loss of future opportunity are not recoverable hence the defendant should not pay the plaintiff any damages for the loss of any future advertising opportunities. Under the principle of stare decisis, both horizontal and vertical precedents can be used. Horizontal stare decisis occurs when a court follows decisions that were used by a court that is at the same level as itself. Vertical stare decisis occurs when a lower court follows the precedents of a higher court. From the earlier case provided, there are both horizontal and vertical precedents from which Judge Gandalf could use to base his final decision on the matter. A horizontal precedent exists from the Meriadoc v Peregrin case of 1989 where the District Court of Queensland ruled that damages for loss of future opportunity were recoverable. A vertical precedent exists from the Bombadil v Nazgul case of 1998 where the Queensland Court of Appeal ruled that damages for loss of future opportunity were recoverable without referring to the to Legolas v Gimli ruled by the High Court of Australia earlier in 1997. The other vertical precedent is in the High Court ruling in the Legolas v Gimli case that ruled that that damages for loss of future opportunity were not recoverable following an appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal. From all these three courts, the High Court is the most superior court having the appellate jurisdiction in Australia. The High Court ruling was carried out by the Full Court of the high court and which did not have to refer to the previous court rulings since they were made by lower courts that itself hence there existed no binding authority as the high court is the highest court in Australia. In making the final decision, Judge Gandalf should consider all of the three previous rulings and evaluate the decisions made so as to make well informed decisions. Of the three courts, the high court is the highest and therefore has more judicial power over the other lower courts. The decisions that it makes are final and therefore Judge Gandalf needs to place more significance on the ruling that the high court made with respect to the case at that time considering that the facts in both of the cases are similar. In addition, its appellate authority could reverse the decisions made in both the Meriadoc v Peregrin case by the District Court of Queensland as well as the decision made in the Bombadil v Nazgul case by the Queensland Court of Appeal. As such, the high court is therefore the best reference for Judge Gandalf to base his decision for the case at hand as it is the highest binding authority in Australia based on the principle of precedents that would require him to be consistent to previous rulings made by higher courts. Bibliography Blackshield, T., Coper, M., & Williams, G. (2001). The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia. South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford University Press. Martin, J. (2005). The English Legal System (4th ed.). London: Hodder Arnold. Read More