The application for leave to appeal out of time by the animal rights group Be Their Voice was adjourned when it came up for hearing in the Court of Appeal last Thursday.
This Content Is Only For Subscribers
Justice of Appeal Francis Belle, who presided with Justice of Appeal Margaret Reifer and Justice of Appeal William Chandler, adjourned the application until November 5 so the parties could negotiate the issue of High Court costs.
The application for leave to appeal, filed by the group’s attorney Lalu Hanuman, said the reasons for the judge’s decision were not received until June 25, 2025, and “it would have been an abuse of process to appeal without knowing the reasons”.
In addition, Hanuman claimed the group had argued its case based on both Section 6 (a) and 6 (b) of the Administrative Justice Act Cap. 109, not only on Section 6 (b). The application for leave further noted that indictable sentences were “challengeable by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but there is no provision for a summary sentence to be challenged”. “This lacuna is what the appellant raised,” the document read. The application for leave to appeal stated: • the group would argue that it had public interest standing, as well as that its interests were adversely affected; • there was no requirement for there to be a constitutional element in a judicial review application, but there was a constitutional element triggered under Article 11(c) of the Constitution;
• there was multiple affidavit evidence presented to the court of large-scale animal cruelty and public disquiet about anti-cruelty legislation not being implemented by the courts; and
• costs in the circumstances ought not to have been ordered.
The application is asking the Court of Appeal to stay the order for costs and to set aside Justice Dr H. Patrick Wells’ decision.
Deputy Solicitor General Marsha Lougheed appeared for the State.
The application to the High Court, by Janet Mullin and Elizabeth Anne Senior, both executive members of Be Their Voice, claimed that if the sentence of 12 months’ probation was allowed to remain, animal abuse would “continue in Barbados unabated with little or no sanction from the courts”.
The suit had named the Chief Magistrate, the Attorney General and Davino Howard, the first-time offender who was given probation for the offences, as parties.
Howard, of Bullens Avenue, Dalkeith Road, St Michael, had pleaded guilty to wantonly ill-treating and causing unnecessary suffering to an animal – his dog Sparky – on September 13, 2022.
He had also pleaded guilty to withholding information, which had been lawfully requested by Sergeant Cecil Taylor, on September 16, and that being the owner of a dog which was older than six months, he kept that dog without obtaining a licence, on September 13, 2022.
Howard had been charged in the wake of a viral video that purportedly showed him drowning his pitbull dog in full view of beach-goers at Pebbles Beach. The video drew outrage from members of the animal rights community, who launched a campaign demanding “Justice For Sparky”.
Now retired Chief Magistrate Ian Weekes had ordered Howard to complete 12 months’ probation for each offence.
The activists, through attorney Hanuman, had asked for the matter to be remitted back to the Magistrates’ Court for further consideration.
Justice Wells, in his decision, had said the application had no standing and did not meet the requirements of the law.
He dismissed it, calling it “a futile application”. (HLE)