Plain language law

New Zealand law explained for everyone

Animal Welfare Act 1999

Care of animals - Offences

13: Strict liability

You could also call this:

"No blame needed: you can still be guilty even if you didn't mean to hurt an animal"

If you are charged with an offence against section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act, the prosecution does not need to prove that you meant to commit the offence. You can be considered to have failed to comply with the Act if a relevant code of welfare existed at the time and you did not meet its minimum standards. This is called rebuttable evidence, which means you can argue against it.

If you are charged with an offence, you can defend yourself by proving you took all reasonable steps to comply with the relevant part of the Act. This might mean showing you followed section 10 or section 11, depending on the offence. You can also defend yourself if you can show that the offence happened in an emergency and was necessary to save human life.

To use this defence, you must tell the prosecutor in writing within 7 days of being charged, or a longer time if the court allows it. You must say what defence you plan to use and give details to support it, such as the steps you took or the emergency that happened. You can find more information about the laws that apply to this in section 12 and the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2002.

This text is automatically generated. It might be out of date or be missing some parts. Find out more about how we do this.

This page was last updated on

View the original legislation for this page at https://legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1986/0120/latest/link.aspx?id=DLM50402.

Topics:
Environment and resources > Farming and fishingCrime and justice > Criminal law
Previous

12: Animal welfare offences, or

"Rules to protect animals from harm and make sure they are treated kindly"

Next

14: Further animal welfare offences, or

"Rules to stop animals suffering unnecessarily"

Part 1Care of animals
Offences

13Strict liability

  1. In a prosecution for an offence against section 12, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit an offence.

  2. In a prosecution for an offence against section 12 committed after the commencement of this subsection, evidence that a relevant code of welfare was in existence at the time of the alleged offence and that a relevant minimum standard established by that code was not complied with is rebuttable evidence that the person charged with the offence failed to comply with, or contravened, the provision of this Act to which the offence relates.

  3. Subject to subsection (3), it is a defence in any prosecution for an offence against section 12 if the defendant proves—

  4. that, in relation to the animal to which the prosecution relates, the defendant took,—
    1. in the case of an offence against section 12(a), all reasonable steps to comply with section 10; or
      1. in the case of an offence against section 12(b), all reasonable steps to comply with section 11; or
        1. in the case of an offence against section 12(c), all reasonable steps not to commit a breach of section 12(c); or
        2. that the act or omission constituting the offence took place in circumstances of stress or emergency, and was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life; or
          1. that there was in existence at the time of the alleged offence a relevant code of welfare and that the minimum standards established by the code of welfare were in all respects equalled or exceeded.

            1. Except with the leave of the court, subsection (2) does not apply unless, within 7 days after the service of the summons, or within such further time as the court may allow, the defendant has delivered to the prosecutor a written notice—

            2. stating that the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2); and
              1. specifying—
                1. where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(a), the reasonable steps that the defendant will claim to have taken; or
                  1. where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(b), the circumstances of stress or emergency, and the reasons why the act or omission was necessary for the preservation, protection, or maintenance of human life; or
                    1. where the defendant intends to rely on subsection (2)(c), the relevant code of welfare that was in existence at the time of the alleged offence, and the facts that show that the minimum standards established by that code of welfare were in all respects equalled or exceeded.

                    Notes
                    • Section 13(1A): inserted, on , by section 4 of the Animal Welfare Amendment Act 2002 (2002 No 53).