David Michael Church, a 62-year-old cattle farmer from Southland, was fined $7,500 in the Invercargill District Court yesterday after being sentenced on five charges under the Animal Welfare Act, following a successful prosecution by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI). The court action concluded a case where four bulls on Church’s property were left in such severe pain from untreated conditions that they had to be euthanised to end their suffering.
MPI Inspection Uncovers Severe Animal Suffering
The offending came to light when MPI Animal Welfare Inspectors and two veterinarians inspected Church’s property, discovering multiple animals in acute distress. According to MPI, the inspection revealed a young Jersey bull with a badly swollen face, cheeks, and jaw that was clearly in pain. Caleb Trent, MPI’s district manager animal welfare and NAIT compliance south, described the young bull’s condition as unacceptable and stated that Church should have taken much earlier action to prevent the situation from reaching that stage.
Alongside the Jersey bull with facial swelling, inspectors found two more Jersey bulls that required euthanasia. One was unable to bear weight due to a swelling in a hind leg caused by a thigh fracture, while another was unsteady on its feet, unable to stand or walk without twisting or swaying, and in severe distress. A Hereford bull was also put down after being found lame in both hind legs with a dislocated hip. A second Hereford bull, which suffered from a woody tongue infection, a burst abscess, and a swollen lower jaw, managed to recover after receiving veterinary treatment.
Accountability and Code of Welfare Obligations
According to Caleb Trent, people in charge of animals are responsible for their health and wellbeing at all times, noting that the vast majority of farmers understand their obligations under the Sheep and Beef Cattle Code of Welfare. Trent stated that any signs of ill-health or injury must be identified and addressed, which frequently includes securing early veterinary intervention. Church had the option to have the young animals assessed by his own veterinarian before MPI intervened, but chose not to do so.
“Mr Church was responsible for the care of these animals and failed to ensure they received sufficient treatment to ease pain and distress,” Trent said, adding that the case carries a clear message that there are consequences for failing to meet animal welfare standards. In addition to the $7,500 fine, the Invercargill District Court ordered Church to pay $4,267.50 in veterinary costs, plus $750 for solicitor fees and court costs.
Potential Future Legal and Industry Ramifications
Worth a look