Animal abuse:  criminal consequences?

Having a pet, forces the owner to behave in a certain way. A way that respects the life of the animal itself. But what are the penal consequences for those who animals cruelty (domestic or not)? The art. 544 ter of the Italian penal code provides that: “anyone who, out of animal cruelty or needlessly, causes an injury to an animal or subjects it to torture or to behavior or to hard work or work that is unbearable due to its ethological characteristics is punished with imprisonment from three to eighteen months or with a fine from 5,000 to 30,000 EUR“. The rule in its exposition is very clear and is often (unfortunately) applied to cases of ill-treatment that really make you shiver.

Definition of productive detention of severe suffering for the animal.

But what is legally an injury to an animal? The majority jurisprudence, applying the norms of the penal code, has better defined and identified the casuistry of the detention of an animal in conditions of serious suffering.

Specifically, it consists not only in what can determine a real pathological process in the animal, but also in what produces mere suffering. Think, for example, of the case of mistreatment for those who keep a dog in an insufficient space, with a short chain and without providing it with adequate food.

The conviction for ill-treatment of the man who had placed and kept a bull terrier breed dog for a long time in an environment that did not allow the animal to move freely and, therefore, unsuited to its natural existence must be confirmed , as enclosed within an extremely narrow space, delimited by a net, and tied to a chain of only 120 centimeters, so as to cause injuries consisting of infected sores on the hind limbs, probably caused by decubitus on the floor, as well as dermatitis of various kinds (in this case, it had also emerged that the confined space had become full of excrement – given the impossibility for the animal to be able to get away -, excrement which ended up mixing with the food, thus not allowing the dog to be able to food) note 1.

Therefore, those behaviors that affect the psycho-physical sensitivity of the animal, causing pain and affliction, also assume importance. This is why the deprivation of food, water and light are criminally relevant; the precarious conditions of health, hygiene and nutrition; detention in such a way as to cause serious suffering to the animal. Unequivocal, therefore, the behavior of the man under trial, who held, inside a room of the house (with a total estimated area of ​​40 square meters), seven dogs (two adults and five puppies) of the Husky breed and Samoyed, in a narrow place, devoid of natural light and in precarious hygienic conditions, that is, in the midst of dirt. (Judgment 39844 of 21 October 2022 of the Court of Cassation).

It is evident, therefore, that the abuse of animals has serious penal consequences which should not be underestimated, both on a moral level and precisely on a penal level.

Other cases with criminal consequences.

As it is easy to think, the deprivation of food, water and light, as well as the precarious health and hygiene conditions are criminally relevant. But the case history in this sense is very vast.

other cases of animal abuse

In fact, for example, the keeping of birds in cages so small as to damage their plumage integrates the crime of animal abuse. The Cassation has had the opportunity to worry about the problem, even going so far as to reform an appeal sentence arriving at ordering that: “The keeping of birds in cages so small as to cause damage and removal of the plumage, and their use in the hunting as live calls, except in the cases and in the ways permitted by articles 4 and 5 of Law no. 157 of 11 February 1992, constitute unbearable abuses due to the ethological characteristics of the avifauna, such as not to integrate the contravention referred to in Article 727 of the Criminal Code, but the crime of animal abuse pursuant to Article 544 ter of the Criminal Code“.

It integrates the crime of animal abuse pursuant to art. 544 ter, paragraph 2, first hypothesis of the criminal code the conduct of those who administer the same banned vaccines, regardless of the assessment of the harmfulness to their health, since it is a crime of presumed danger.

Circumstantial evidence of animal abuse

But how is the responsibility of accused of animal abuse proven? Everyone thinks that, in order to demonstrate animal abuse, one must necessarily witness the negative act against the animal. That’s not always the case. The liability of a defendant may well be inferred not only from representative evidence but also from circumstantial evidence. It follows that in the crime of animal abuse, the absence of witnesses who have directly seen the defendant hurt the animal does not allow him to be definitively exonerated, when there is unequivocal circumstantial evidence against him; such as witnesses who have seen the animal enter the property of the defendant, heard a shot from a rifle and saw the wounded animal try to get away.

What are the judge’s assessments in the event of an accusation of animal abuse?

However, with regard to the evaluation of the circumstantial evidence, the trial judge cannot limit himself to an atomistic and fragmented evaluation of the clues, nor proceed to a mere summation of the latter, but must first of all evaluate the individual circumstantial elements to verify their certainty, test them the intrinsic demonstrative value (usually only possible) and then proceed to a global examination of certain elements, to ascertain whether it is possible to attribute the crime to the defendant “beyond any reasonable doubt” and, that is, with a high degree of rational credibility. Therefore, where there are more than reasonable doubts regarding the subjective traceability of the disputed conduct to the accused and the elements that emerge stop on the threshold of circumstantiality, without even arriving at the seriousness, precision and concordance, it is not possible to proceed with the conviction . note 2

The kidnapping of abused animals

Should the authorities intervene, especially those in charge of the reference Hygiene Office, the seizures will be triggered.

And in fact, the seizure of the malnourished dog and kept in poor health conditions, carried out by the zoophile guards, is valid. Although they have lost the qualification of public security agents, they are in any case voluntary security guards of a recognized national association (Enpa). This was affirmed by the Cassation, rejecting the appeal of a man against the Court’s sentence which had confirmed the preventive seizure of a dog, ordered urgently by the zoophile guards and validated by the investigating magistrate, whose owner he kept in poor health and malnutrition conditions, to the point of hypothesizing the crimes pursuant to art. 727 of the criminal code, of animal abandonment, and 544-ter of the penal code, of animal abuse. Note 3

1 – Fonte: Diritto & Giustizia 2021, 16 settembre (nota di: A. Ievolella)
2 – Fonte: Redazione Giuffrè 2022
3 – Fonte: Guida al diritto 2021, 16