Sheep Sabotage and the TPA
You read some funny things in court judgments.. Like the recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd v Hahnheuser [2007] FCA 1535, in which two agricultural companies sued an environmental activist (Hahnheuser) for feeding ham to a number of sheep, thereby preventing them from being exported to the middle east for halal slaughter.
They sued under s 45DB of the TPA -- boycotts affecting international trade or commerce. They lost, despite the fact that Hahnheuser withdrew his instructions to counsel at the last minute and didn't appear at the trial. Gray ACJ held that the trade and commerce of one of the applicants was not affected, and in any case it was not international trade or commerce.
Significantly, Gray ACJ held that the conduct of Hahnheuser was for the subjective purpose of preventing the suffering and cruelty of sheep in live export, and that such animal welfare concerns fall within the meaning of 'environmental protection' in s 45DD(3) (which deals with permitted boycotts). Therefore, Hahnheuser's actions could not contravene s 45DB. Section 45DD not only qualifies the scope of s 45DB, it qualifies the secondary boycott provisions in s 45D -- meaning that animal welfare boycotts (such as PETA ran against Australian woolgrowers because of 'mulesing') will not be actionable under s 45D if this judgment stands.
The Victorian Farmers Federation are saying the decision 'opens the gate for Agricultural Terrorism'. I thought that agricultural terrorism was cows with guns?
They sued under s 45DB of the TPA -- boycotts affecting international trade or commerce. They lost, despite the fact that Hahnheuser withdrew his instructions to counsel at the last minute and didn't appear at the trial. Gray ACJ held that the trade and commerce of one of the applicants was not affected, and in any case it was not international trade or commerce.
Significantly, Gray ACJ held that the conduct of Hahnheuser was for the subjective purpose of preventing the suffering and cruelty of sheep in live export, and that such animal welfare concerns fall within the meaning of 'environmental protection' in s 45DD(3) (which deals with permitted boycotts). Therefore, Hahnheuser's actions could not contravene s 45DB. Section 45DD not only qualifies the scope of s 45DB, it qualifies the secondary boycott provisions in s 45D -- meaning that animal welfare boycotts (such as PETA ran against Australian woolgrowers because of 'mulesing') will not be actionable under s 45D if this judgment stands.
The Victorian Farmers Federation are saying the decision 'opens the gate for Agricultural Terrorism'. I thought that agricultural terrorism was cows with guns?
Leave a comment