Government examines change to law after dog abuser walks free from court

WARNING, CONFRONTING CONTENT: Tasmania’s laws against bestiality could be revamped after a man accused of engaging in sex acts had charges against him dismissed.

• Hobart man denies he had sex with a dog, committed to trial
• Man charged over child porn, bestiality material

THE state government will review Tasmania’s bestiality laws after a judge ruled many acts thought to be illegal were in fact not covered.

A change to the state’s laws covering sex offences three years ago had the effect of significantly narrowing the definition of the crime.

South Hobart man Ammar Ibrahim Elnami, 21, was charged with bestiality after allegedly engaging in a number of acts with a dog in September 2019.

He asked the Supreme Court to discharge him from the indictment against him because he argued the law did not cover the particular acts he was accused of.

In a lengthy decision handed down in early November, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Estcourt found that the history of the offence could be traced back to English law in 1533 with legislation entitled “An Acte for punysshement of the vice of Buggerie”.

The penalty at the time was death.

In Tasmanian law, the prohibition was originally contained within laws prohibiting crimes against morality such as “unnatural carnal knowledge” with various changes over the decades, the judge noted.

But amendments to the law made in 2017 had the effect of changing the definition of sexual intercourse.

Justice Estcourt considered the history of the offence in Tasmania and other jurisdictions over time, the dictionary definition of the term and the intent of parliament when making its most recent amendments.

He said that while in some states, the definition of bestiality was broad and covered a range of sexual activity, Tasmania’s current laws governing the offence only applied to penile penetration by or of an animal or bird.

“If we accept the Crown’s position, the offence will fundamentally change from one relating to sexual intercourse between a human and an animal to one proscribing and punishing any touching of a sexual nature between a human and an animal,” he said, noting that “… there is no clear statutory mandate to do so.

“And, to accept that invitation would be to exceed the proper role of the courts in defining criminal liability.”

Justice Estcourt ordered that Mr Elnami be discharged from the indictment against him.

A government spokeswoman said Director of Public Prosecutions Daryl Coates, SC, had considered Justice Estcourt’s decision.

“The DPP has advised that there will be no appeal,” the spokeswoman said.

“The Government will now undertake a review of the legalisation as a result of the decision.”

Follow @DavidJKillick

Originally published as Government examines change to law after dog abuser walks free from court