Apparently there is a recent interpretation of the high court in Spain that wants to clarify the limits of this crime. So much so, that the Supreme Court annuls the conviction for the crime of animal abuse of a man who beat his dog, for not having seriously impaired health or cruelty.
First of all, we are going to explain the concept to you, to really know when there is a crime of animal abuse:
According to article 337.1 of the Penal Code, a crime of animal abuse is committed by anyone who unjustifiably abuses an animal in a that causes injuries that seriously undermine your health or subjecting you to sexual exploitation to:
a) a domestic or tame animal.
b) an animal that is usually domesticated.
c) an animal that temporarily or permanently lives under human control.
d) any animal that does not live in the wild.
The penalties provided for in the previous section will be imposed in their upper half when any of the following circumstances occur:
a) Weapons, instruments, objects, means, methods or forms specifically dangerous to the life of the animal have been used.
b) It would have mediated cruelty.
c) The loss or uselessness of a sense, organ or main member would have been caused to the animal.
d) The acts were carried out in the presence of a minor.
If the death of the animal has been caused, a penalty of six to eighteen months in prison and special disqualification of two to four years will be imposed for the exercise of a profession, trade or trade that is related to animals and for the possession of animals.
In this case, Chamber II of the Supreme Court has acquitted a man who beat his dog after it caused injuries for animal abuse on the knuckles of one hand, understanding that the 'serious impairment of the health' of the animal or a cruel action by the owner of the pet did not occur.
To better understand the case, according to the proven facts, the man was at his house around twelve o'clock at night cleaning fish. A piece fell to the ground and when trying to pick it up the dog also approached, "so the dog's mouth and the hand (of the man) coincided and, as a consequence, the dog hit the knuckle of a hand, causing incised wounds.
The man rejected him by hitting him on his right hand and with a hand in which he carried a seal in the upper part of the thorax, causing a limp in the dog's right leg, although it is not proven that such a limp constituted a permanent sequel, and an incised wound on his chest, which healed after the application of suture staples and antibiotic and analgesic treatment.”
The animal was a mixed breed with an American Stanford, Pit Bull or Bull Terrier cross, around eight months old and weighing around twelve kilograms.
The court understands that in order for there to be animal abuse, the veterinary assistance necessary for the recovery of the animal must be taken into account; whether hospitalization is necessary or not; the risk to life or the possibility of permanent sequelae.
Since in this case it is understood that there is no serious impairment to health, it has been concluded that neither hospitalization nor sequelae were necessary, as well as minimal intervention by the veterinary professional.
Judge Julián Sánchez Melgar, in disagreement with the sentence, considers that the animal did not bite the owner at any time and that his reaction was disproportionate to the pet. He also understands that the seriousness of the injuries was considerable, causing a temporary limp in the animal and a wound on its chest that had to be treated by a veterinarian.
Now that you know when there is a crime of animal abuse, we encourage you to report it, consult Audacia Lawyers,
Request your legal consultation now
your lawyers in Torrevieja.