Manager punished for unlawful transportation of live animals

A firm of haulage contractors was to transport cows to the slaughterhouse. The driver who performed the carriage was also the company's managing director and responsible for its day-to-day operations, and through his private company, he owned the majority of the company's shares.

When the truck with the cows arrived at the slaughterhouse, it was stopped by the police's flying squad for control of the animals.

Among the animals there were three cows which the flying squad and a vet considered unfit for transport. The farmers who left the cows for transport were, together with the driver and the company, charged with violating of the Danish Animal Welfare Act and rules on the welfare of animals in transit.

The charge against the company was that it was liable for conviction due to its responsibility for the transport and for the way in which the driver had performed the transport. Consequently, the company could also be punished for its irresponsible treatment of the three cows.

However, the driver was of the opinion that such a punishment would in fact hit the same person twice as the driver was also the company's managing director and co-owner. As that would be double punishment, the punishment had, as a minimum, to be reduced.

Both the driver and the firm of haulage contractors were punishable

In the district court and later in the High Court, both the driver and the company were fined for transporting live animals unlawfully. The court held that it must have been clear to the parties that the cows were unfit for transport and that they were thereby exposed to pain, suffering, anxiety and considerable discomfort. It was therefore proven that the animals had been treated irresponsibly.

The court also held that as a result of the driver's negligence, the company was also punishable.

In relation to the company, the court took into account the company's prior conviction for violation of the Animal Welfare Act, which affected the amount of the fine.

The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the district court and the High Court and held that the fines could not be reduced even though the driver was also the managing director and co-owner of the company as the two could not be considered the one offender.

Moreover, the Supreme Court believed that a reduction of the punishment would go against the deterrent considerations behind the Animal Welfare Act.

IUNO's opinion

The judgment shows that unlawful transport may result in the punishment of both a company and the persons performing the carriage.

In particular in relation to the transport of live animals, it is necessary to pay attention to s. 28 of the Animal Welfare Act whose legislative history provides that both the driver and the employer may be punished in cases concerning the unlawful transport of live animals.

In case the performing driver and the company's owner/management are the same person, such person may in fact be hit twice - lawfully.

[Supreme Court judgment of 23 August 2012, case no. 313/2011]