Judge rejects animal rights group’s bid for harsher sentence in dog abuse case

A High Court judge has rejected an animal rights group’s bid for a judicial review of the sentence given to a man who admitted to abusing his dog.

Justice Patrick Wells on Wednesday ruled against the application filed by Be Their Voice Inc., saying the group “has no standing” in the case.

In 2022, Davino Shakell Howard was charged after a video of him allegedly drowning his dog, Sparky, at Pebbles Beach went viral on social media. The then 28-year-old admitted to charges of animal cruelty, failing to license a dog, and withholding information and he was sentenced to 12 months probation and mandated counselling.

Seeking a tougher penalty for Howard, Be Their Voice, represented by attorney-at-law Lalu Hanuman, filed a request for judicial review. However, speaking from the bench in the No. 10 Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Wells said the group had no grounds for the review, as it was not a party in the matter.

“What we have here is a group which was not the person before the court, a group that was not sentenced by the court, coming and saying ‘we want you to make a decision on the magistrate because we do not think the punishment was harsh enough’. That is not what a judicial review is about because I cannot disturb anything about the findings unless these were not supported by facts,” the judge said.

He further ruled that the group had no legal standing since the magistrate’s sentence did not impact them directly or indirectly.

“The only interests which arose were the interests of the accused person because they were being punished. The accused person got the punishment, took the punishment, did not appeal the punishment and went about their merry way. That does not concern the group which is now making this application because that sentence does not impact them. All it is, is that they disagree with the penalty which was applied. It is not because the case affects them directly or indirectly. It doesn’t!” the judge contended.

“The ruling of the court is that the application is dismissed. It has no standing. There are no legal requirements of the law.”

Awarding costs to the defendant, Justice Wells said the application “had no business before the court”.

“On the face of it, it is an application that is futile. That is the view of this court. Some other court may disagree and that is fine,” he said.

Earlier, in his submissions, Hanuman argued that animal maltreatment had economic implications for Barbados, citing letters from concerned tourists. However, he was unable to provide statistical evidence when requested by the judge.

Justice Wells stated, “If you are saying it has an economic impact on the country, I want you to demonstrate from the proper sources — the planning institute, the statistical institute, the Ministry of Finance, whichever other public interest group that deals with the economy —… that those actions by any court impact the economy. It is not about letters. Those cannot assist me. I want to hear about GDP [Gross Domestic Product] and GNP [Gross National Product].”

Hanuman replied, “We live in a tourist economy and these tourists are saying they are so appalled by the situation that they will not come back to Barbados because of the failure to implement protection legislation, so clearly there is an economic issue involved.”

However, the judge pressed the attorney to provide figures to support his argument.

“…Can you demonstrate through evidence to that court that action by the magistrate had, has or may have any impact on the economy of this country?” he queried.

Cautioning that allowing public interest groups to challenge court decisions in this manner could bog down the justice system, the judge added: “If every member of the public or public interest group who has a disagreeing view with the sentence or judgement of the court could come to the court to seek judicial review, this court will never have time to do anything else. It will be doing judicial reviews 24 hours a day. That cannot make any sense.”

He advised the group to pursue alternative avenues to get their message across, such as lobbying Parliament or picketing.

Speaking to the media outside the court minutes after the ruling, the head of the animal rights organisation, Lavern Beresford, expressed profound disappointment at the ruling.

“Now anybody can abuse animals, treat them however they want and they can go before the court and either they will get a lenient sentence or no sentencing at all, as what has happened in the last 17 to 18 years,” she lamented.

“We appealed it because it directly affects us and what we are trying to achieve. We advocate for fair treatment of animals, for a decent standard of living for all of them and that is just not the case in Barbados for numerous animals that continue to suffer on the island. So it is very disheartening that the matter has been dismissed after every effort has been made to have it reviewed.”

She added that the group had reached out “years ago” to several parliamentarians, who had pledged their support to the cause. However, she said these were all “broken promises”.

“We have met with them and continued to appeal to them. We have even offered to collaborate with them in terms of assisting with resources in setting up departments where we can get persons to go out in the community and help, and we have gotten almost no reaction from the government,” Beresford charged.

“We honestly feel as though animal welfare is not a priority in this island, and we don’t know why. It adversely affects tourism; it adversely affects communities and private citizens who are finding dogs and cats abandoned around this country like garbage….This is one of the reasons why we have so much crime in society. How do we expect to even care about each other if we cannot protect animals?”

As for the group’s next step, Hanuman told the media that he would be encouraging his client to appeal the ruling.

jeniquebelgrave@barbadostoday.bb