However the MPI, which has described the case as the worst involving deliberate animal injury to come before the NZ courts, appealed to the High Court, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offending.
Justice Priestley granted the appeal, describing the penalty imposed as completely inadequate against the backdrop of the cruelty involved. He cancelled the sentence of home detention and substituted a jail term of two years and one month, meaning that Erasmus must serve time in prison as only those sentenced to less than two years’ jail are eligible for home detention.
Justice Priestley also made an order disqualifying Erasmus from owning or exercising authority over animals.
Erasmus pleaded guilty to three offences under sections 28(1)(c) and (d) of the act. The first charge alleged he wilfully ill-treated 25 cows with the result that their pain or distress was so great that it was necessary to destroy the animals to end their suffering. The second charge alleged he wilfully ill-treated 22 cows seriously injuring them and leading to them suffering prolonged pain. Thirdly, it was alleged that 115 cows were wilfully ill-treated, resulting in serious injury and prolonged pain.
The summary of facts provided to the District Court said Erasmus had begun farming at Princes Street, Waikino in June 2011. From early February last year he began hitting his cows during milking, initially using stainless steel milking cups to strike the cows on the bony hock areas of their hind legs. He either swung the cups against the cows’ legs while holding the hose attached to the cups, or else used the cup as a “club” held in the palm of his hand to bash the animals’ legs.
He struck the cows with the milking cups repeatedly to bruise their legs then used his fist to strike the bruised areas forcefully. That abuse continued during each milking period for around three to four weeks.
In early February last year he started using a three feet long bar made of heavy steel tubing to strike a number of cows in the hock areas of their hind legs with as much force as he could muster while the animals were contained in the dairy. Each animal was hit approximately three to four times with the heavy steel bar. As a result of the assaults a number of the cows developed large haematomas, resulting in large abscesses on their hind legs.
A Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry animal welfare inspector found serious animal welfare issues, with a majority of the cows on the property showing obvious signs of physical injuries, including suspected broken legs, lameness, severe swelling and abscesses oozing pus and blood. 115 of the 135 cows exhibited signs of broken tails.
One cow was euthanased within 10 minutes of the first inspection due to her injuries and 25 animals in total were euthanased as they were in such severe pain and distress. A further 22 animals had severe injuries requiring veterinary treatment.
Justice Priestley said the maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals had been increased by Parliament from three to five years’ jail in 2010. The purpose of the amendment had clearly been to strengthen the act’s provision for dealing more effectively with serious offending against animals.
He said Erasmus exhibited a number of positive qualities, being hardworking, not using alcohol or illegal drugs and having no previous convictions. Erasmus and his wife had bought a dairy herd under a normal sharemilking arrangement but things had not gone particularly well for them, resulting in Erasmus being prescribed anti-depressant medication. As early as 2006 he approached his doctor complaining of uncharacteristic anger and impatience when cows were uncooperative.
Justice Priestley said Erasmus had suffered from sleep apnoea and there was clearly a psychological dimension to his offending. But having regard to the need for denunciation of sustained and deliberate animal cruelty and the requirement for deterrence in such a situation, a jail term should have been imposed.
“Judge Wolff was clearly moved to be merciful and I respect that,” he said. “But the sentence, when seen against the backdrop of the cruelty, is manifestly inadequate.”
Justice Priestley also made a banning order under section 169. He did not stipulate any minimum term, meaning if Erasmus ever wanted to return to farming he would need to make an application to the court under section 169A for the lifting of the ban.
