After the AAT and the Federal Court had a go, in November the High Court, the best jurisprudential minds, with combined experience of over a century, had a really useful challenge.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court both (with the exception of Dodds-Streeton J) found that Sea Shepherd did not provide ‘short-term direct care animals without owners’ to whales.
They found this because:
– Short-term direct care requires provision of physical assistance, such as food, shelter or veterinary care to animals which require care of that nature. Sea Shepherd’s principal activity of protecting whales from harm does not constitute care of animals.
– Whales are not animals that would ordinarily be expected to have owners from whom they have subsequently become separated.
More info is at the Commissioner’s Decision Impact Statement at http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?docid=%22LIT%2FICD%2FVID630of2012%2F00001%22.
But how cool is it that the greatest legal minds have had to work out if putting yourself between a harpoon and a whale is short term direct care? Even cooler is whether they have owners… Go Willy… Be free Willy…
Leave a Reply