Jury Awards S.P.C.A. Inspector £250 For Libel

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28606, 7 June 1958, Page 14

Jury Awards S.P.C.A. Inspector £250 For Libel

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, June 6. Robert John Avery, an inspector of the Wellington branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, was’awarded £250 damages for libel against Truth (New Zealand) Ltd., in the Wellington Supreme Court today. He had claimed £5OOO.

When the jury returned its verdict, Mr R. H. Boys, on behalf of the company, applied to the Court for 14 days in which to move on the judgment. The Chief Justice (Sir Harold Barrowclough) granted the application.

Avery’s claim arose from an article in “Truth” which criticised the manner in which he destroyed a collie dog which was worrying goats at Moa Point, Rongotai. Today, for the defence, Ronald Fraser, officer in charge of the Noxious Animals Division, of the Forestry Department, said he had inspected the place where the goats were being molested. Goats were one of the most sure-footed of animals. He considered they were in no danger of falling from the ledge and that it was unnecessary to kill the dog. Gregory Gerald Kelly, former arms adviser to the Commissioner of Police, said that, in his opinion, an experienced marksman would not have tried to shoot the dog from the road without using a telescopic sight. Bullets from a high-powered rifle could have ricocheted into nearby houses. Addressing the jury, Mr Boys said the dog was not savage, and it need not have been killed. If it had to be killed, it should have been shot from a distance at which Avery had a reasonable chance of killing it. Avery, said Mr Boys, had admitted under cross-examination that he might have caused the dog unnecessary suffering after shooting it from an “impossible” range. He had left it while he chased other dogs. A boy had then been asked to drag it down while it was still.alive.

Mr Boys said the company had not in any way retracted theircriticism of Avery’s action. If newspapers were not permitted to make fair comment after thoroughly investigating complaints “they might as well go out of business.” “Not Fair Comment” Mr D. S. Castle, for Avery, said the article was “inflammatory and calculated to expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule and contempt.” The claim that Avery had bungled, and been unnecessarily cruel, purported to be a statement of fact and was not fair comment. If the goats had fallen over the cliff when molested by the dogs, Avery might have been, criticised by the newspaper for not doing his job. Only the plaintiff had seen the goats being attacked. What actually happened had been reconstructed by “a whole battery of experts,” said Mr Castle. Inspectors of the S.P.C.A. regarded all animals as being equal in so far

as cruelty was concerned. Avery’s case was founded on the fact that he had been confronted with an emergency and* was authorised to shoot dogs attacking stock. It was reasonable to assume that, after firing the second shot, Avery thought he had killed the dog. Later, he sent someone to ascertain if it was dead. He could not reach the animal himself, and he asked a boy to drag it down the hill so that he could kill it as quickly as possible. Avery’s statement that he might have caused the dog unnecessary suffering could be attributed to the fact that “everyone had been having a crack at him,” and he had begun to doubt whether he had acted correctly. There was no evidence to support the claim that people had been exposed to danger when the dog was shot, said Mr Castle. At the time, children were at school, and it was not shown that anyone else had been on the hill. Statements in the article that the ground where the dog was shot “looked like a slaughterhouse” and that the animal had been shot from 300 yards had not been proved.