A carer whose bird-feeding habits landed her in trouble accused of causing a rodent infestation has had a win in the Supreme Court, with her fine reduced and her wish for a spent conviction granted.
The Hamilton Hill woman, who PerthNow has chosen not to name, was found guilty by a Fremantle magistrate in March for contravening the City of Cockburn’s Health and Local Laws Act.
She was fined $650 and ordered to pay costs of $2500.
According to the prosecution’s initial case, the woman’s choice to scatter birdseed in her backyard during an eight-month period of 2022 caused a “rodent infestation” in the area, with “several dead rats” found within a seven-month period.
But in a Supreme Court judgment on September 22, Justice Matthew Howard described the penalty as “manifestly excessive”.
The 52-year-old woman wrote to the Fremantle Magistrates Court on November 15 last year to enter an endorsed plea of not guilty and explain why she was denying the offence.
In her appeal, it was said the magistrate had issued a fine disproportionate to the criminality and a “miscarriage of justice” had occurred when the trial was not adjourned.
It was also said the woman was a first offender, had lived a “blameless” life and was on a carer pension earning only $22,000 a year.
She reportedly cares full-time for her ageing father who has vascular dementia and her work was “all-consuming”, leading to problems sleeping.
The woman did not deny feeding the birds in her original defence and the court was told she sweeps up “what is left over” in the backyard.
In his decision, Justice Howard said while there was no issue the trial had proceeded in the defendant’s absence, she should have been granted a spent conviction and a reduced fine.
He also rejected a “rodent infestation” was the direct result of the birdfeed.
“It is a notorious — if regrettable to many — fact that rodents occur in all suburbs,” he said.
“It would be difficult, in my view, to sensibly maintain a contention that there were rodents found at the property and neighbouring properties simply because of the appellant’s offending.”
Justice Howard concluded the offending was “relatively minor” and the initial fine “manifestly excessive”. He re-sentenced the woman to a $200 fine and a spent conviction order. She will also pay $450 costs.
“(This is) someone who appears anxious to comply with the law — now that she knows about it — and someone who does not wish to be in trouble again,” he said.
“In my judgment, the offence of which the appellant was convicted is a trivial one.”