A judicial review aimed at overturning the suspended sentence of a man convicted of drowning his dog is set to begin on Monday, in what is being seen as a landmark case for animal rights.
The case revolves around Davino Shakell Howard, 28, who pleaded guilty to drowning his dog, Sparky, at Pebbles Beach in September 2022.
Howard was sentenced to 12 months probation and mandated to attend counselling after Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes found him guilty of wantonly ill-treating and causing unnecessary suffering to the animal. The sentencing followed a pre-sentencing report from the Probation Department, which recommended a non-custodial penalty.
But in filing for judicial review, animal rights lawyer Lalu Hanuman called the sentence “unreasonable”.
He argued that the suspended sentence was effectively a “non-sentence”.
“He hasn’t been fined $1. He hasn’t been sentenced to one day in prison,” Hanuman said, expressing frustration that the punishment did not match the severity of the crime.
In addition to the animal cruelty charge, Howard was also sentenced for owning a dog over the age of six months without a licence and for withholding information from police. All three sentences were to run concurrently, meaning Howard faced no additional penalties for cruelty towards Sparky.
The judicial review seeks to challenge the legality and fairness of the sentence.
“It’s not an appeal; it’s a judicial review of a chief magistrate’s sentence,” Hanuman explained, differentiating between the two legal approaches. In judicial review, a court decision is challenged on the grounds of procedural unfairness, legal errors, or unreasonableness.
Under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, Howard could have faced up to 12 months in prison or a fine of up to $1 000. Hanuman lamented that despite the law, no substantial penalty was imposed.
He said: “We are saying that amending the legislation to increase the sentence or the fine isn’t the answer. What is required is that legislation be implemented, and somebody is sent to prison for cruelty to animals.”
As part of the judicial review, Hanuman is seeking for Howard to be retried and resentenced, stating that the convicted man has been served with court documents but has yet to respond.
He believes that a successful outcome could set a legal precedent in Barbados, encouraging courts to take animal abuse cases more seriously.
“It would set a precedent and . . . change, in effect, judicial attitudes to the current situation of animal abuse in Barbados,” he said.
The lawyer highlighted that since the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act was passed in 2007, no one has been sentenced to prison or fined for animal abuse. He suggested that failure to enforce animal cruelty laws could have broader implications, potentially damaging the island’s reputation.
“Tourists coming to Barbados, seeing that abuse is happening and nobody’s being punished for it, distracts them from coming to Barbados,” he warned.
When asked if Barbados is doing enough to protect animal rights, the animal rights activist-attorney noted that the case had been in the court system for several years, with multiple judges recusing themselves from hearing it. He hopes that the current judge will not follow suit.
While new legislation, the Animal Health and Veterinary Public Health Act, was introduced in 2023, increasing penalties to up to two years in prison or a $100 000 fine, Hanuman believes tougher laws alone are insufficient.
“Raising the fines and raising the imprisonment terms is an exercise in futility if nobody’s being sentenced to prison or nobody’s being fined,” he said.
The attorney also linked the issue of animal rights to broader themes of justice and human rights, likening the mistreatment of animals to the historical wrongs of slavery, colonialism, and apartheid.
“Any cruelty, any oppression, any exploitation—we need to take a stand against,” Hanuman said.
With Monday’s hearing representing a significant moment for the future of animal rights enforcement in Barbados, he offered this plea: “We, in the Caribbean, should be in the vanguard of the struggle for rights—human rights and animal rights.” (RG)
