Animals are often at the mercy of a legal system that fails to protect their basic needs. While scientific research continues to demonstrate that they have complex emotions and social lives, the law still treats them mostly as property rather than subjects with their own rights. This article explores the concept of animal cruelty as an “invisible crime” — an offense that’s less visible to the public and receives little political or research attention. The author aimed to explore how the legal system in Australia recognizes animal victims and the crimes committed against them once they actually reach the courtroom.

To understand these invisible crimes, the author created an original database of 552 animal welfare prosecutions in Australia from 2011 to 2025. These cases specifically involved companion animals like dogs, cats, and rabbits.

Finding this information wasn’t easy. Many animal welfare organizations and courts don’t maintain complete or public records of their cases. The author had to rely on newspaper articles, as well as the websites of the seven Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) branches responsible for enforcing animal cruelty laws. The author then analyzed 19 representative cases to highlight patterns in how the law treats animals during prosecution and sentencing.

The analysis identified three major ways the legal system “invisibilizes” animal victims. First, courts often prioritize an owner’s right to keep animals over the animal’s need for safety. In one case, a woman was convicted of neglecting 156 animals — including chickens found trampling one another to death in cramped cages — but she was allowed to keep her dog. Another magistrate refused to record a conviction for a woman who severely neglected her horses because a lifetime ban on horse ownership would harm her livelihood.

Second, when large numbers of animals are harmed, the legal system often fails to count them as individual victims. For example, a couple was charged with only one count of cruelty for neglecting 79 cats, eight of whom had been kept in tiny plastic containers. In another case involving 50 birds, only three charges were brought. This suggests that as the number of animal victims increases, the legal system’s ability to see them as individuals decreases.

Third, sentencing doesn’t always treat the death of an animal as more serious than non-lethal harm. In one comparison, a man who shot and killed two dogs who wandered onto his property received a lighter penalty than a man whose neighbor’s dog survived his poisoning attempt. Additionally, harm to a dog was sometimes punished more severely than harm leading to the death of a rat or a rabbit.

The study’s main limitation is that the dataset is incomplete due to a lack of institutional transparency. It’s impossible to know what proportion of all prosecuted cases are actually listed on RSPCA branch websites or covered in the media. Furthermore, because Australia has eight different pieces of animal welfare legislation along with their different maximum penalties, it’s difficult to compare sentencing outcomes across the country.

For advocates, this study highlights how meaningful justice for animals requires a shift in how they’re viewed by the law — and by society. The author recommends expanding the invisible crimes framework used in this article to recognize not only invisible crimes, but invisible victims. This addition would show how certain groups — such as animals or marginalized humans — are already invisible even before a crime is committed against them, simply because they’re seen as property or otherwise excluded from full community membership. The author also suggests formally recognizing animals as crime victims to grant them specific rights. These include the right to be treated with dignity, the right to legal representation or guardianship in court, and the right to protection from their alleged abuser. As a start, advocates can support this shift by calling for greater transparency in prosecution data and promoting court-appointed advocate programs that give animals a voice during trials.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, as well as studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.