Heartless farmer jailed for starving 170 geese to death in Spain

THE Spanish Supreme Court has upheld a 15-month prison sentence imposed on a farmer who abandoned 170 geese to die of hunger.

In its judgment, the Court pointed out that the man had no excuse: “The person in charge of the farm and the animal feed warned the defendant about the lack of feed and the malnutrition of the geese.”

The defendant had “absolute knowledge of the state of malnutrition they were in,” and could not offer any reasonable explanation for his conduct.

He allowed 170 geese to die from “starvation and lack of care” on an organic livestock farm he owned in Fuente Obejuna (Córdoba).

READ MORE:

• EXCLUSIVE: British tourist vows to ‘never return’ to this town on Spain’s Costa del Sol after seeing ‘shocking animal abuse’
• Spanish couple are arrested for animal abuse after ‘farm of horrors’ is discovered in Alicante
  

The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, in a ruling by Judge Manuel Marchena, dismissed the farmer’s appeal against the ruling of the Provincial Court of Córdoba, which also imposed a three-year and six-month special ban on him from exercising any profession, trade, or business related to animals.

According to the proven facts, the owner of the geese was listed as the sole administrator of a company engaged in the extensive fattening of these animals for the production of pâté, meat, and feathers on a farm in Cordoba.

During June 2018, he let them die from “starvation and lack of care,” with full knowledge of their state of malnutrition and “with total disregard for their lives”: this much was evident, because the person in charge of feeding the birds had informed him of the lack of feed and of their desperate condition.

When the veterinary services of the Andalucian Regional Government and the Nature Protection Service of the Guardia Civil (SEPRONA) arrived at the farm, they found the geese dead, most of them piled up.

They had no feed or drinking water, except for a small drinking trough and a small rainwater pond in some pens, where they drank, bathed, and defecated, and they also did not receive adequate medical care.

The Court had to decide whether the neglect of the birds was a “one-off” act, or an on-going criminal offence. The appellant’s argument, that this was one single omission, was rejected.

“The death of 170 geese as a result of consecutive omissions that deprived the animals of the essential care to avoid thirst, hunger, and failure to provide veterinary care, until the moment of their collective death, must be treated according to the rules as a continuing offence, to be punished in accordance with Article 74 of the Penal Code,” the judgment states.

Article 74 affirms that “anyone who … carries out a series of actions or omissions that offend one or more individuals … shall be punished as the perpetrator of a continuing crime.” The Court made it clear that, for its purposes, animals capable of feeling pain count as “individuals” in the eyes of the law.

The ruling emphasises that “the suffering of an animal, the death of a living animal requires a criminal punishment: this acquires meaning when we think of the creature as a sentient being and, therefore, protected in its very nature.”

The Court added that in the case examined, “170 deceased animals were found, and they cannot be reduced to the status of a shapeless group: each one was an individual.”

“The objectification of animals is contrary to the state of our legislation and to the shared values that are already part of a sociological normality that views every animal as a sentient being, deserving of the respect required for life, whether human or not.”

The Criminal Chamber specified that “the events occurred during a prolonged period of time, culminating in the three days in which the historic trial places the moment of collective agony that led to the animals’ death.”

It emphasises the fact that, prior to this outcome, “the person in charge of the farm and animal feed warned the defendant about the lack of feed and the malnutrition of the geese.”

“The animals did not receive the regular veterinary care, as required by the normal operation of an organic farm. Nor did he provide the care essential for the geese’s survival. There were, therefore, many omissions that undermined the united will to neglect the animals he exploited,” the judgement concludes.