Macquarie Law School LAW448: Animal Law Research Paper

This research paper delves into the multifaceted realm of animal law, specifically addressing the question of whether to further regulate or abolish animal use. It explores the historical and philosophical underpinnings of animal law, including the evolution of property status and the emergence of animal protection laws. The paper examines the core principles of animal welfare and animal rights, contrasting their approaches to animal treatment and the concept of 'unnecessary harm.' It critically analyzes the 'Three Rs' (reduction, refinement, and replacement) in animal research, the 'Abolition of Property Status' strategy, and the 'Principle of Proportionality.' The paper also investigates the legal frameworks and government responsibilities concerning animal welfare in Australia, including the role of international treaties and the challenges faced by current regulations. It further discusses landmark cases like Ford v Wiley and Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy v Patrick Lavery, and philosophical contributions of scholars like Peter Singer, to provide a comprehensive overview of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding animal rights and welfare.

Running head: ANIMAL LAW
ANIMAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1ANIMAL LAW
Question 1
In the nation of Australia, animals have been utilized for purposes such as teaching and
research. A book named ‘The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique’ was published by
the authors named Rex Burch and William Russell in the year of 1959. Their book highlighted
and underlined the ‘reduction, refinement, and replacement’ in relation to the utilization of
animals, and the aforementioned notions have been denoted as the ‘Three Rs’. The
aforementioned principles have stimulated and exhilarated the researchers to work adequately in
order to cause a reduction in the quantum of utilization of animals for experimental purposes.
According to Burch and Russell, the pain and distress that is caused to the animals during such
research procedures must be refined and restricted, and if possible non-animal alternatives must
be utilized by the researchers in lieu of actual animals1.
However, it may be said that in spite of the statements and ideologies forwarded by
Burch and Russell in relation to the utilization of animals for research purposes, the quantum of
animals that are being utilized for the purposes of testing and research have increased. Such
increase in utilization of animals have raised serious scientific and ethical issues. Further, it may
be stated that the ‘The Rs’ do not sufficiently imitate or replicate the considerable developments
in relation to the mental, emotional and cognitive abilities regarding the animals, the separate
interests and welfare in relation to the animals, or a modernized understanding in relation to
possible harms and risks that are connected to the research of animals.
A particular strategy in relation to animal law is the ‘Abolition of Property Status’. The
sturdiest advocate in relation to this strategy is considered to be Professor Gary Francione, a
1 Timoshanko, Aaron C., Helen Marston, and Brett A. Lidbury. "Australian regulation of animal use in science and
education: A critical appraisal." (2017) ILAR journal 57.3: 324-332.

2ANIMAL LAW
legal professor of American descent. According to the writing of Francione, it may be mentioned
that a rights-based moral and ethical position, which is founded upon sentience, has been
adopted. He has applied the principle and notion in relation to equal consideration. As per the
strategy mentioned above, it can be said that the most essential right shall be considered to be the
right and entitlement of not being treated as any kind of property. Therefore, the ‘Abolition of
Property Status’ should be considered to be a chief objective in relation to the community
regarding animal rights2.
However, it can be said that the approach in relation to animal welfare has been failing. It
has been highlighted that such approach will keep on failing because it mandates a proper and
adequate balance regarding the interest in relation to the owner of property with the interests in
relation to the animal property. It can be stated that where an animal will be utilized as a
property, then in such situation even the most central interests of the animal shall be
subordinated to most minor and inconsequential interests of the humans.
The case of Ford v Wiley (1889) 23 QBD 203 is considered to be a relevant case in this
regard3. A particular principle had been forwarded. It is known as the ‘Principle of
Proportionality’. As per the ‘Principle Proportionality’, in a particular situation, analysis is
mandated in relation to two facets. Firstly. It is the legitimacy in relation to the object. Secondly,
it is the legitimacy in relation to the means. It may be demonstrated that the means shall be
proportionate in relation to the end that is required to be realized or accomplished. It leads to the
conclusion that the more the legitimacy in relation to the purpose, then there shall be more
opportunity for inflicting harm on the animals. According to Hawkins J., it may be said that in
2 Ellis, Elizabeth. "Malcolm Caulfield. Animals in Australia: Use and Abuse. Vivid, 2018. 336pp." (2018) Animal
Studies Journal 7.2: 218-221.
3 Ford v Wiley (1889) 23 QBD 203.

3ANIMAL LAW
order to attain one object or purpose the infliction of additional pain might be warranted or
vindicated than the toleration in order to secure another4.
The ‘Principle of Proportionality’ may be applied to specific practice or utilization of
animals. For instance, the aforementioned principle may be applied in the case of abuse of sheep
in relation to wool industry. In the wool industry of the nation of Australia, the workers in
relation to the wool industry shear the sheep with unwanted and unnecessary cruelty. The sheep
are assaulted and violently treated by the workers while they shear the wool from the body of the
sheep. The sheep are only considered and treated as a commodity and nothing more. This kind of
inherent and unwarranted cruelty has been going on for years, even after strict legal rules and
guidelines in that regard. Therefore, after the application of the aforementioned principle it can
be said that there is no balance or proportionality in relation to the abuse or utilization of sheep
for wool. It may be stated that the harm and pain that is inflicted upon sheep is disproportionate
and unnecessary. Even in relation to the legitimacy in relation to the purpose, the infliction of
harm on the sheep is unwarranted and unnecessary5.
However, according to Sankoff, it may be said that proportionality analysis transpires
against the milieu of anthropocentric superiority of humankind. It has been stated by Sankoff that
majority of the purposes in relation to animal harm are regarded as legitimate and valid. Only the
sadistic purposes are considered to be illegitimate. Means that gives production relating to
economic benefit shall anytime be considered and reasoned as valid and legitimate.
In the nation of Australia, the responsibility and obligation in relation to animal welfare
has been, to a large extent, retained and reserved by the territories and states through a
4 Jans, Verna, et al. "Balancing animal welfare and assisted reproduction: ethics of preclinical animal research for
testing new reproductive technologies." (2018) Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 21.4: 537-545.
5 Bendor, Ariel L., and Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg. "Animals Rights in the Shadow of the Constitution." (2018)
Animal L. 24: 99.

4ANIMAL LAW
management that bears a structure, which is fragmented, disjointed, multifaceted, inconsistent,
varying contradicting and complex. Most of the jurisdictions have specifically established that
the possession and ownership of wildlife shall be considered to be illegal or against the law. It
must be mentioned that the action in relation to taking, captivating, owning and possessing any
particular animal, for rehabilitation purposes, shall be considered to be against the regulatory
processes. All territories and states have legislations relating to animal welfare that are
considered to be modern and comprehensive. Local governments of the nation as well as the
Central government of the nation of Australia have the responsibility and obligation towards the
welfare of both domestic and wild animals. The governments bear the overall obligation or
responsibility in relation to certain purposes6. Firstly, it is the welfare and wellbeing of the
kangaroos that are killed in connection to commercial purposes. The ‘State Management Plans’
are accepted and permitted by the ‘Department of Environment and Energy’ of the Government
of the nation of Australia. Secondly, the governments bear the responsibility in relation to the
comportment of animal management that are being introduced under the ‘National Threat
Abatement Plans’ by the ‘Department of Environment and Energy’. Thirdly, the responsibility
includes various aspects relating to animal welfare. It includes the management of wild animals
and the research of animals on the lands of the Government of Australia. The Government of the
nation of Australia is also considered to be responsible and accountable for the provision of input
and contribution to international negotiations in relation to welfare of the animals and the growth
and improvement of the international standards. The Government negotiates various accords and
treaties and confirms and guarantees acquiescence in relation to all the treaties signed by the
Government of the nation. One such treaty or accord is the ‘Convention on International Trade in
6 Morton, Rochelle, Michelle Hebart, and Alexandra Whittaker. "Increasing Maximum Penalties for Animal Welfare
Offences in South Australia—Has It Caused Penal Change?." (2018) Animals 8.12: 236.

5ANIMAL LAW
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora’, also known as the CITES. The government of the
nation of Australia prepares and enforces legislation relating to animal welfare. It delivers
adequate official, established and statutory frameworks, suitable rules, policies, guidelines and
programs. The Government promotes and makes such policies readily accessible and available to
the general populace7.
However, it may be stated that the present framework as forwarded by the Government of
the nation of Australia has been failing due to several reasons. Firstly, it is the lack of
independence and the transparency of the procedures in relation to the utilization of animals.
Secondly, it is the failure to correctly and appropriately consider the expectations and values of
the community. Thirdly, it is the conflict that arise in relation to decision making. Fourthly, it is
the misapplication and mismanagement of science relating to standards.
According to Hope R. Ferdowsian and Nancy Beck, it may be stated that the
apprehension in relation to increasing research in the time period of the later years of the
nineteenth century and early years regarding the 20th century, generated concerns and
trepidations in relation to the utilization of animals and humans for research purposes. Such
apprehensions and suspicions deepened when several projects were discovered in which humans
were being exploited for the purposes of medical experiments. Such abuse in relation to humans
is considered to be the reason for the creation of the ‘Declaration of Helsinki’, ‘Nuremberg
Code’ and ‘National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
Behavioral Research’ in the year of 1974. Presently, the guidelines mentioned above deliver a
platform in relation to the security, protection and safeguard of the human subjects for research
purposes, which includes the values and ideologies regarding justice, beneficence, and respect. It
7 Halpin, Darren. "Animal welfare in Australia: Politics and policy [Book Review]." (2018) Australasian
Parliamentary Review 33.1: 172.

6ANIMAL LAW
also includes the special securities in relation to weak and susceptible populations. The laws in
relation to the protection of the animals for the purposes of research have been since established.
It was the British Parliament that ratified and passed the initial range of protections in relation to
animals in the year of 1876. The name of the first legislation was Cruelty to Animals Act8.
A particular code is followed in the nation of Australia. The purpose in relation to the
Code of the nation of Australia is the promotion and advocacy regarding the responsible, humane
and ethical care and utilization of the animals in connection to scientific purposes. This particular
Code delivers an ethical and moral structure or framework that governs the principles in order to
direct the action and decisions of individuals and associations involved in connection to the care
and the utilization of the animals for the purposes of science. The Code provides particulars in
relation to the duties, responsibilities and accountabilities of investigators, animal protectors,
organizations, animal ethics committees (AECs) and institutions, and any individual who all are
involved in such activities.
The case of Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy v Patrick Lavery [2018]
NYSC is considered to be a relevant case in this regard9. In this particular case, a suit had been
filed demanding that chimpanzees should be released from facilities of private captivity to any
kind of sanctuary. The pleadings on behalf of the captured and detained chimpanzees were made
by the ‘Nonhuman Rights Project’. This aforementioned project is considered to be the initial
and the only legal institution, which demanded that as per the evidences forwarded by scientific
research, courts should acknowledge the right, entitlement and privilege of specific nonhuman
animals in relation to the rudimentary rights, for instance, bodily integrity and bodily liberty. The
Project mentioned above comprises of scientists, legal experts and attorneys. The primary focus
8 Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
9 Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy v Patrick Lavery [2018] NYSC.

7ANIMAL LAW
of this particular project is to raise and spread awareness among the general populace and
educate the general populace about the rights, privileges and entitlements in relation to
nonhuman animals.
According to Steven White, human treatment in relation to other animals is considered to
be the topic and study of strong and powerful scholarly academicians for several years. It has
also been the study in relation to a more universal populace debate and discussion for several
years. Such study had been receiving strong deliberation and discussion particularly after the
publication of the book called the ‘Animal Liberation’. The name of the author of the
aforementioned book is the Australian philosopher, Peter Singer and the book was published in
the year of 1975. In the nation of the United States, the debate in relation to the treatment of the
animals infused and pervaded the discipline in relation to law to such an extent that presently,
there are a lot more than a quantum of ninety courses connected to animal law, which are
conducted and demonstrated in the universities all around the whole nation. A noteworthy and an
increasing scholarly literature, textbooks involving multiple editions and committed or devoted
law journals were also published in relation to the aforementioned study10.
However, in spite of the Australian derivation as being a chief contributor in relation to
the modern present-day metaphysical debate and discussion, the legal academy of the nation of
Australia has demonstrated either none or reasonably petite interest in connection to this
significant area. The Constitution of the nation of Australia does not specifically address the
issues and matters in relation to animal welfare and, factually, the role of the Commonwealth in
this particular area cannot be considered to be a substantial one.
10 Thornber, Peter M., and David J. Mellor. "1International Animal Welfare Consultants, Ltd., Waikanae, New
Zealand, 2Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand." (2017) Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare:
Science and Practice : 183.

8ANIMAL LAW
The regulation in relation to animal welfare in the nation of Australia has been the
obligation and accountability of the territories and the states. The Constitution does not explicitly
provide for deliberations in relation to welfare of the animals. However, it may be said that the
demands of the institutions regarding augmented international and national cooperation and
collaboration in relation to matters and issues of animal welfare are compelling the
Commonwealth to be much more active in connection to the aforementioned matters11.
Certain reforms should be proposed in relation to the issues mentioned above. An
Australian Commission in connection to welfare of animals should be established. It shall be an
independent legislative body, which shall be funded and subsidized wholly by the Government.
It shall consist of five commissioners regarding five distinct expertise. These five expertise may
include science relating to animal welfare, science relating to agriculture and livestock,
economics and public policy, and the ethical standards relating to farm animals. The primary
functions of the body shall include instituting ethics and science regarding animal welfare,
management of the development process regarding standards, review of the effectiveness of the
regulation of live export, authorizing compulsory research relating to animal welfare and
educating the industry and the community in connection to issues regarding farm animal welfare
and shall stimulate the best practice12.
In the conclusion, it may be said that the regulations in relation to utilization of animals
have raised questions both scientifically and ethically. This paper has forwarded a discussion in
relation to the regulatory processes of the nation of Australia. Implications made by various
academicians and legal scholars have been mentioned in this particular paper. The ‘Principle of
11 Coleman, Grahame. "Public animal welfare discussions and outlooks in Australia." (2018) Animal Frontiers 8.1:
14-19.
12 Caulfield, Malcolm. "The Australian Animal Use Industry Rejects Anthropomorphism, But Relies on
Questionable Science to Block Animal Welfare Improvements." (2017) Animal Studies Journal 6.1: 155-174.

9ANIMAL LAW
Proportionality’ has been discussed and applied in a specific scenario in the paper. Various cases
have also been discussed in this paper. This paper as forwarded recommendations in relation to
the issues regarding the regulatory framework of the nation of Australia in connection to welfare
of the animals. It may be said that the Code of the nation of Australia incorporates all facets
regarding the care and the utilization of the animals when the objective is to obtain, progress or
prove and determine information, knowledge or methods and procedures in any specific area
relating to science, for instance, agriculture, biology, veterinary, medicine and other sciences
relating to animals, teaching and industry.

10ANIMAL LAW
Bibliography
Bendor, Ariel L., and Hadar Dancig-Rosenberg. (2018) "Animals Rights in the Shadow of the
Constitution." Animal L. 24: 99.
Caulfield, Malcolm. "The Australian Animal Use Industry Rejects Anthropomorphism, But
Relies on Questionable Science to Block Animal Welfare Improvements." (2017) Animal Studies
Journal 6.1: 155-174.
Coleman, Grahame. "Public animal welfare discussions and outlooks in Australia." (2018)
Animal Frontiers 8.1: 14-19.
Cruelty to Animals Act, 1876.
Ellis, Elizabeth. "Malcolm Caulfield. Animals in Australia: Use and Abuse. Vivid, 2018. 336pp."
(2018) Animal Studies Journal 7.2: 218-221.
Ford v Wiley (1889) 23 QBD 203.
Halpin, Darren. "Animal welfare in Australia: Politics and policy [Book Review]."
(2018) Australasian Parliamentary Review 33.1: 172.
Jans, Verna, et al. "Balancing animal welfare and assisted reproduction: ethics of preclinical
animal research for testing new reproductive technologies." (2018) Medicine, Health Care and
Philosophy 21.4: 537-545.
Morton, Rochelle, Michelle Hebart, and Alexandra Whittaker. "Increasing Maximum Penalties
for Animal Welfare Offences in South Australia—Has It Caused Penal Change?." (2018)
Animals 8.12: 236.

11ANIMAL LAW
Nonhuman Rights Project on behalf of Tommy v Patrick Lavery [2018] NYSC.
Thornber, Peter M., and David J. Mellor. "1International Animal Welfare Consultants, Ltd.,
Waikanae, New Zealand, 2Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand."
(2017) Advances in Agricultural Animal Welfare: Science and Practice : 183.
Timoshanko, Aaron C., Helen Marston, and Brett A. Lidbury. "Australian regulation of animal
use in science and education: A critical appraisal." (2017) ILAR journal 57.3: 324-332.