The beagles were so deprived of nourishment when seized by an animal rescue charity that they were days from death, according to the trial testimony of an expert in veterinary pathology, Laura Rogers.Beagle Paws Rescue
Prosecuting animal cruelty could become easier after an appeal court in Newfoundland and Labrador threw out the acquittal of a man who let his four beagles starve nearly to death.
The beagles were so deprived of nourishment when seized by an animal rescue charity that they had in effect consumed their own body tissue to survive, and were days from death, according to the trial testimony of an expert in veterinary pathology, Laura Rogers.
The trial judge, Provincial Court Justice Jacqueline Brazil, described them as “extremely emaciated” and near death, and said they had been deprived of food for a prolonged period. Even the accused pet owner, Robert Picco, cried when shown the pictures of the starving beagles.
Yet Justice Brazil said in an oral ruling two years ago that the dogs were not suffering because they were otherwise in good health. And her ruling was upheld in a first layer of appeal, at the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, where Justice Peter O’Flaherty said he owed deference to Justice Brazil’s finding that the dogs were not suffering because it was a factual determination, which falls to the trial judge to make.
The acquittal was seen by some legal observers as symptomatic of a justice system that has gone awry in animal-cruelty prosecutions. The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal overturned it last week and ordered a new trial for Mr. Picco. While its interpretation of the animal-cruelty provisions of the federal Criminal Code directly applies only in that province, the ruling is expected to be influential across the country.
“This is now one of the three most important cases ever decided on animal cruelty,” University of Alberta law professor Peter Sankoff said on X, formerly Twitter. “It will help in the prosecution of offenders and result in more animal ownership prohibition orders. So it was a damn exciting day.”
Mr. Picco and his lawyer, Benjamin Curties, could not be reached for comment.
Mr. Picco was charged with willfully causing unnecessary suffering and willfully neglecting to provide adequate food and care. To prove willfulness, the prosecution needed to show he intended to cause the beagles to suffer and be neglected, or was reckless about the consequences of his actions.
Canada to ban cosmetic testing on animals
There were several strands in Justice Brazil’s decision to acquit and in the appeal court’s 3-0 ruling ordering a new trial. On the dogs’ suffering, Justice Frances Knickle wrote for the appeal court that Justice Brazil was “wrong in reason, logic and in law.” And her finding was not factual but a matter of law – of applying a legal standard of what suffering means – and Justice O’Flaherty was therefore wrong to uphold the acquittal.
The test of what constitutes suffering, said Justice Knickle, goes back to a 1978 ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in which animals being euthanized suffered for 30 seconds. That case said that any degree of unnecessary suffering establishes this aspect of the offence. (It was one of the other two important precedents mentioned by Prof. Sankoff.)
Justice Brazil had said she was left with a reasonable doubt that Mr. Picco was reckless, because he had been in a “difficult period” – his mother had been placed in a nursing home. Justice Knickle said that was irrelevant. “Mr. Picco knew his duty to care for the animals continued regardless of his difficult personal circumstances.”
Justice Brazil had also required the prosecution to show that Mr. Picco’s conduct was a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable person in similar circumstances. That was unnecessary, the appeal court said, citing a paper by Prof. Sankoff in which he reported a “troubling line” of cases, leading to a British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling in 2016 insisting on proof of a marked departure, which made it more difficult to convict.
Sandra Woito, shelter manager of Beagle Paws Rescue, was one of three rescuers who seized the dogs. “They were skin on bone,” she said in an interview. “We thought for sure it was a slam dunk. Those dogs didn’t get that way in a week. It took months.”
She called the four beagles “the sweetest dogs ever” and said after being fed, sheltered, loved and cared for at Beagle Paws they are now healthy and adopted out – two to Edmonton and two locally.
Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, a legal advocacy group, said the requirements for proving intent to willfully neglect an animal are confusing, and have “led to a large body of troubling and legally wrong case law.” She said the ruling will make it harder for judges to make rulings that defy what she termed common sense.