Legal Consequences of Animal Hoarding in New Zealand
| Author | Anita Killeen |
| Published date | 01 August 2016 |
| Date | 01 August 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0022018316657942 |
| Subject Matter | Comment |
Comment
Legal Consequences of Animal
Hoarding in New Zealand
Anita Killeen
Quay Chambers, Auckland, New Zealand
Auckland SPCA, Auckland, New Zealand
American Bar Association Animal Law Committee, USA
Abstract
A 10-year prohibition against a defendant from owning or exercising authority over any animals
has been upheld by the New Zealand Court of Appeal in an animal hoarding case which has
progressed through the New Zealand legal system over the past 5 years.
This comment reviews the Court of Appeal decision (Kondratyeva v R CA6/2015 2015] NZCA
266 [23 June 2015]) andexplores the increasing evidenceof a mental health component in animal
hoardingbehaviour. It also discussesthe stress and burdenthat animal hoardingcases places on the
shelters that have the legal responsibility for prosecuting animal cruelty cases in New Zealand.
Keywords
Animal Hoarding, Kondratyeva, prohibition over owning or exercising control over animals,
overwhelmed caregiver, rescuer, exploiter
A 10-year prohibition against a defendant from owning or exercising authority over any animals has
been upheld by the New Zealand Court of Appeal, and leave to appeal to the New Zealand Supreme
Court was dismissed on 4 December in [2015] NZSC 186.
The defendant, Tatyana Kondratyeva, was convicted on two charges in relation to 50 cats following a
prosecution brought by Auckland SPCA. She was sentenced to 125 hours’ community work, 12 months’
supervision and prohibited from owning or exercising authority over animals for 10 years.
The Court of Appeal decision (Kondratyeva vRCA6/2015 2015] NZCA 266 [23 June 2015]) is
significant both for its denunciation and deterrence of this type of offending and also for its acknowl-
edgement that the resulting pain, distress and suffering experienced by animals is a relevant factor to be
taken into account at sentencing.
Importantly, by upholding a 10-year prohibition from owning or exercising authority over any
animals in the future, there is a renewed emphasis on the welfare of animals and the need to protect
New Zealand’s animals from future harm.
Corresponding author:
Anita Killeen, Barrister, Quay Chambers, Rabobank Building, Level 7, 2 Commerce Street, Auckland City PO Box 26 008, Epsom,
Auckland 1344.
Email: anita.killeen@xtra.co.nz
The Journal of Criminal Law
2016, Vol. 80(4) 237–240
ªThe Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0022018316657942
clj.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial