According to the case study the issue has been arises whether Rianna has committed any offence of breached the section 5 of the Small Birds Act or not?
The section 5 of the Small Birds Act has defined the facts that any man maiming, injuring or killing a small bird is guilty of an offence and then that person will be finned with $500. According to the section 3 of the Small Birds Act the section 3 has defined that the bird is represents an animal which is covered with feathers. The cruel has defined the inflict pain or death. The suffering has defined the distress.
In the case of Regina v. Ojibway (8 Criminal Law Quarterly 137 (1965-66) is a famous Canadian case where a member of the First Nations of Canada had relieved a pony which was wounded due to the gunshot therefore that person was charged with section 2 of the Small Birds Act.
According to the act of Small Birds Act has defined the all the two legged, feather-covered animals are birds according to the meaning of definition here in this of Regina v. Ojibway the pony is also defined as the birds but that does not signifies as a actual bird but here the two legged is the minimum requirement. The two legged along with feather is also requirement for completed the elements. The government council has described that the Small Birds Act has naturally statues the small animals with are naturally covered with soft feather. According to the fact of the case here the horse or the pony is basically covered with feather on its back therefore it has signified as bird or small bird in the Small Birds Act.
The case has been acquitted of charged with the allegation under the Small Birds Act, R.S.O., 1960, c.724, s.2. Fred Ojibway who was an Indian person was riding with his pony in the Queen’s Park on January 2, 1965. On that day the horse was improvised and was forced to pledge the saddle and placed in the downy pillow on the saddle. Then the pony was hurt and breaks his foreleg which caused him pain. Therefore the accused who was believer of Indian Customs then shot the pony for relieving him from the awkwardness of pain. This kind of action makes the allegation of charges due to the breach of the section 2 of the Small Birds Act. The section 2 of the Act has defined that if any person injured or killed any small birds therefore he will be charged with the offences and could be fined with minimum $200.
The magistrate of the court has subjected the fact that the accused has killed his pony not any small bird which does not make any sense. According to the section 1 of the Small Birds Act has cleared the concept of the small bird which has motioned that a two-legged animal covered with feathers. Therefore the case should focus on this particular part about the definition of the bird where the accused has charged with the section 2 of the Small Birds Act.
In accordance with the case facts the council of the court has argued several facts where they focused on the killing and injuring the animals and guilty for the offences but along with such facts they also added that the pony was an animal not a bird. Therefore the issue has arises about the existence and the definition about any animal whether it will defined as an animal or a bird. First it is important to clear the facts about the definition of the animal and bird. If the pony is animal then how it will be long or is it short and if it was a bird it is also included to prove the facts whether it will a long or short bird. They also added that if it is has defined as bird whether the accused can ride on it or not. Therefore several issues has arises due to the arguments between the council. Therefore when it will be proved about the specification between the animal and the birds then it the questions will arises what kind of species is it.
Now, before the final argument opposite side council has added that it is important to prove what the significance of a bird is. According to the fact it has defined as bird only because the consists of two legs along with feather in his body which covers the minimum standards of the feather of a bird. Therefore when the definition of animal has been defined it should signify because it has consisted of four legs along with the animals which also consist of two legs. Therefore according to the facts the accused of the case has guilty of charge of killing his pony.
In this case, the opposite council also argued with the facts where he has mentioned about it is clear that the animal, which has been killed, is an animal not a bird and it makes the case more conflicted. Therefore according to the new argument the issue has introduced new facts whether the pony was animal or a bird but the existence of the act. The Small Birds Act is whether an actual law is or not. The iron shoes which has found on the leg of that pony has disqualifies the facts that it is not a bird but the council authorities has argued with the facts that the court is not concerned with the dresses of any animal. This argument has continued by the council member but it also leads to the facts the horse is consist with feather on its back which satisfy the facts of being a bird. Therefore the morality of the case has argued with each other facts of the case due the arguments by the council. However, both of the fact has prove the arguments against each facts.
This case has collected several facts for proving the existence of the pony whether it is an animal or a bird. They have collected evidence from the case of Yates v. United States where they found a while a Marine official has boarded in the fishing boat of John Yates of Florida they have found more than 3000 red groupers where at least 72 of them has been caught under small size. However the Marine officer has found that the Yates has breached and violates the fishing conservation rules of United States. Later after three years a federal prosecutor has charged Yates for breach the Sarbanes Act where it has been defined that “knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies or makes a false entry in any record, document or tangible object” which against of law. However, the defendant has defensed themselves against the offences. Therefore again an argument has arises due to the different con and pros. When the case came to the Supreme Court, the basic issue turned out to be how the courts should interpret the term ‘tangible object’ according to this Sarbanes-Oxley rule. Yates’ defense lawyer began by arguing that the natural meaning of the expression ‘record, document or tangible object’ refers only to devices designed to preserve information. Many other pro and con arguments ensued. Some of them concerned the legal consequences of applying this rule to this case.
Therefore in the case of Regina vs. Ojibway the statutory interpretation has been forced various interpretation where it can be forced that a horse for eating birdseed for the rest of their life. Therefore the facts also raise several question that whether the horse will may produce egg to giving birth of a bird which not possible. Therefore for the existence of such questions it has described that the accused has ridden an animal not bird therefore that animal which has been killed is not a bird at all. It was a pony which is an animal. Therefore the opposite council has identified the facts that they had mistaken the facts that it was not a bird but a bird.
The Small Birds act has been introduced in Tasmania from the protection of the animals from every cruelty and any kind of harms. The section 3 has defies legislation which described that the bird is represents an animal which is covered with feathers. The cruel has defined the inflict pain or death. The suffering has defined the distress. The section 4 of this act has defines that the act has been introduces for the prevention of the unnecessary suffering of animals. The act also helps to promote the community awareness about the welfare of small birds. The section 5 of this act as defined the facts the facts that any man maiming, injuring or killing a small bird is guilty of an offence and then that person will be finned with $500.
However the Small Birds Act has introduced by the Tasmania Group. Animal Welfare is an important issue and it is essential that the legislation enforcing it is reviewed on a regular basis to ensure that it continues to meet contemporary standards. If it will be required to have a civilized society and then the society will never tolerate cruelty to animals.
The speaker of Tasmania has also mentioned that they have knowledge about the recent trends amongst a small group in society to use sling shots, missiles and other weapons in order to kill small birds which are in nature. Therefore, this Act aims to address such anti-social and cruel behavior.
Therefore according to the given facts Rianna Barnergu was riding her pony on the Hobart Domain. Concerned that a saddle was a degrading and painful device for her pony, Rianna substituted a down pillow in lieu of the saddle. On this particular day, Rianna’s pony broke its right foreleg, and concerned for the suffering of her animal, Rianna acted in accordance with the customary law of her people and shot the pony to relieve it of its pain. Rianna was subsequently charged with having breached S. 5 of the Small Birds Act. This case fact is similar to the case facts of the Regina v. Ojibway.
The section 5 has defined the facts the facts that any man maiming, injuring or killing a small bird is guilty of an offence and then that person will be finned with $500. According to the argument of the council of the case, Regina v. Ojibway it has arose same question in the Rianna case. The fact is about the existence and the definition about any animal whether it will define as an animal or a bird. First it is important to clear the facts about the definition of the animal and bird. If the pony is animal then how it will be long or is it short and if it was a bird it is also included to prove the facts whether it will a long or short bird. They also added that if it is has defined as bird whether the accused can ride on it or not. Therefore several issues has arises due to the arguments between the council. Therefore, when it will be proved about the specification between the animal and the birds then it the questions will arises what kind of species is it.
Now according to the all the facts and arguments it can be concluded that Rianna has committed offence of killing and injuring the pony while placing the saddle in his leg which is very painful for the animal. He has suffered several pains but according to the customary law she shot that animal. Therefore she has breached the terms f the section 5 of the Small Birds Act and found guilty of the offence. Therefore, according to the section 5, killing any animal maiming, injuring or killing a small bird is guilty of an offence and then that person will be finned with $500 which means she may also fined with same penalties.
Regina v. Ojibway (8 Criminal Law Quarterly 137 (1965-66)
Yates v. United States
Small Birds Act