Elephant trial: Judgment in April

08/02/2003

South Africa

Pretoria - Judgment in the trial of two men accused of maltreating 30 elephants on a farm at De Rust, near Brits in North West, in 1998 is expected to be delivered in the Pretoria Regional Court on April 7.

Riccardo Ghiazza and Wayne Stockigt are accused of contravening the Animal Protection Act. Ghiazza is also accused of training elephants without a licence.

In closing argument on Friday, prosecutor Johann Kok submitted that Ghiazza had been reckless in not acting to prevent the maltreatment of the animals while they were in his charge. In meting out blows to the animals, Stockigt had known he was causing them pain, said Kok.

Ghiazza's defence counsel, Ettienne du Toit, SC, contended that Ghiazza had done more to prevent maltreatment of the elephants than did his accuser, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).

Ghiazza reprimanded the expert elephant-handler mahouts brought in from Indonesia when he saw them treating the animals badly, said Du Toit, and fired and repatriated three of them after finding out they had stabbed an elephant with a pitchfork.

Ghiazza also suspended Stockigt on receiving a report about a video made of him beating an elephant when it pushed another student handler up against a railing while it was being tethered.

In addition, Ghiazza had taken pointed metal ankuses and ear-loops away from handlers after the SPCA raised concerns about their use on the elephants, Du Toit submitted.

In contrast, SPCA monitors did "absolutely nothing" about an avalanche of incidents they noted while on the premises.

Du Toit argued that the law did not ban animals suffering or being beaten - it only banned unnecessary suffering or their being beaten cruelly. Ghiazza had acted to stop such treatment, Du Toit contended.

Evidence was led that the SPCA recognised it was necessary for handlers to use short sticks and flat hands on the elephants and to tether them with chains.

"I am sure the SPCA wouldn't have stood there witnessing such treatment if it thought it was ill-treatment," Du Toit submitted.

Allan Trusler, counsel appearing for Stockigt, argued that while his client had hit the elephants, he had not done so without reason and, as a student handler, had acted as he had been taught by the mahouts.

Stockigt had used more force than usual in the videotaped incident, which was shown on television, because a colleague's life was in danger. The treatment was in line with the mahouts' instructions, said Trusler.

Stockigt delivered reasoned blows, after which the elephant obeyed him, Trusler submitted.

Previous testimony that hitting an elephant on the forehead, trunk area and rump - where Stockigt had hit the animal - would have caused it more irritation than pain, Trusler told the court.