Case study - Do Sheep like ham?

 “Late on the night of 18 November 2003 Ralph Hahnheuser and others entered into a paddock of a sheep feed lot in Portland, Victoria. He placed ham and water into two feed troughs from which about 1,700 sheep fed. The sheep were being held in the feed lots and prepared there to be exported alive on a ship, the MV Al Shuwaikh on about 21 November 2003.

The next day, 19 November 2003, Mr Hahnheuser, who was a member of Animal Liberation SA Inc, publicised what he had done by issuing a press release and participating in a series of media interviews. He caused a video to be made of the contamination of the feed. He explained that the contamination of the sheep feed by adding ham, was designed to prevent it meeting Halal requirements for the preparation of food suitable for consumption by Muslims in Middle Eastern destinations.”  Full Court of the Federal Court, VID 953 of 2007 on 22 August 2008

The case that was bought against Mr Hahnheuser by Rural Export & Trading (WA) Pty Ltd and Samex Australian Meat Co Pty Ltd had a high media profile, but also was legally noteworthy in that the judgment from this case clarified the meaning of ‘environmental protection’ as defined in section 45DD of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).

Initially, Mr Hahnheuser represented himself and was, further, granted leave by the court to also represent the second respondent Animal Liberation SA Inc. Due to the novel nature of the case the court recommended that both respondents seek representation through the Public Interest Law Clearing House.

The Herbert Geer pro bono team (assisted by Jim Delany SC and Matt Barrett of counsel) then represented Animal Liberation SA Inc.

Animal Liberation SA Inc claimed no responsibility for the conduct of members, such as Mr Hahnheuser and others, who engaged in the conduct alleged.

The relentless pursuit of justice for Animal Liberation SA Inc. involved a myriad of attacks on the statement of claim and a complex succession of notices to court, which effectively achieved a dismissal by agreement for Animal Liberation SA Inc. with no Order as to costs.

The matter did not end there, at the commencement of the trial, the legal representatives for Mr Hahnheuser sought leave to absent themselves from the trial.

Despite Mr Hahnheuser being an absent respondent, no injunction or declaration was made. The court held Mr Hahnheuser was not engaged in conduct that contravened section 45DB of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). This section, read simply, states that a person (Mr Hahnheuser) cannot engage in conduct that has the effect of preventing a third party (Samex) from engaging in trade or commerce that involves the movement of goods between Australia and places outside Australia. It was held that Mr Hahnheuser’s conduct fell into an exception to section 45DB as provided for in section 45DD where conduct that is engaged for the purpose of environmental protection is not in contravention of section. 45DB. 

Not surprisingly, the applicants sought to appeal the judgement at first instance.

Herbert Geer (briefing Stephen O’Bryan SC and Jane Treleaven), as acted as representatives for Mr Hahnheuser.

Mr Hahnheuser was not so lucky in the appeal as he was during the trial that he had absented himself from. Nevertheless, Mr Hahnheuser was party to a case that helped to define and give greater understanding to the meaning of ‘environmental protection’ in that it does not include animals travelling on a ship but rather is the protection of flora, fauna or ‘artifice’ within a location or natural habitat.

Herbert Geer has taken part of a trial and passionately argued on the part of its client that has assisted in a new decision on an important aspect of the Trade Practices Act and the right to Boycott under the Trade Practices Act. This decision means that lawyers are now better placed to advise their clients on the meaning of ‘environmental protection’ and the exercise of sections 45DB and 45DD or the Trade Practices Act.

Following the unsuccessful appeal, the issue of damages then arose. The applicants were of the view the matter had already been before the Court and Mr Hahnheuser had no right to re-agitate the claim. Herbert Geer on behalf of Mr Hahnheuser, argued otherwise. That submission was successful.

The matter came back before the Court on 25 February 2009, instructing Andrew Broadfoot. At the time of writing, Judgment has not been handed down.  

Back to Pro Bono Legal Services page