Australian who shot his neighbour’s cat dead avoids conviction but is fined $2000

This is quite interesting and is a follow-up to a previous article which I wrote about a man, Kent Wilson, who shot his neighbour’s purebred cat (Oriental SH) believing that he was feral when he clearly was not a feral cat. The cat was on his properly. Wilson acted illegally.

Kent Wilson
Kent Wilson. An upstanding, honest man, who loves animals (really).
Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles: Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

It is interesting because the maximum sentence for a crime of this sort in Australia is four years imprisonment and/or a $50,000 fine. I would bet my bottom dollar that nobody in the history of Australia has been imprisoned for four years for any animal cruelty crime. In fact I would go so far as to say that I would bet that nobody has been imprisoned for more than a year.

In this instance Mr Wilson was fined $2000 so you can see that his punishment is at the very bottom end of the scale and for some peculiar reason he was not convicted. I don’t know how one is fined while not being convicted of a crime at the same time. In the UK the two would go together but apparently in Australia they don’t.

His lawyer argued in his defence that he was completely honest with his neighbour when asked what happened to the cat (whose name by the way was Spock). I agree that he did say he had shot Spock and buried the cat (I presume to hide the crime!).

In addition his lawyer argued that Mr Wilson was a Country Fire Service volunteer and was genuinely motivated by his love of animals.

How, on God’s earth, can a person who loves animals shoot a cat who happens to be wandering on his property? The lawyer’s argument totally baffles me.

It is said that Mr Kent has learned his lesson. I suppose that the process of being dragged through the criminal courts is of itself quite a stark punishment. It is a very stressful process and of course he was in the public eye throughout the process and his case was well publicised on the Internet.

The magistrate who presided over the hearing said that Mr Wilson was not the typical offender and noted that he had no prior convictions.

“I do not propose recording a conviction” the magistrate said. Surprised? The prosecuting lawyer argued that an example should have been set as a deterrence against cruelty towards animals. Judging by my last article, cruelty towards animals is not a major concern of many people in Australia including the authorities.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

Useful tag. Click to see the articles: Cat behavior

4 thoughts on “Australian who shot his neighbour’s cat dead avoids conviction but is fined $2000”

    1. No fine would ever be enough. Having been through this the judge had to ask me if there even were vet bills because I never brought them up. That selfish prick couldn’t find enough money to replace what he murdered if he won the lottery every Saturday night for the rest of his life.
      I don’t believe for one minute this is his first victim. Abusers don’t just pop up out of no where. Low laying perverts who walk among us. They should nail a warning sigh on his house.

  1. The vet who blinded my cat got a 250 fine. And the reason was clouded by the violation they choose to use instead of citing her for each violation she is guilty of. Sadly for her I have facebook and a whole arsenal of evidence and the conviction that every pet owner in my community needs to know what kind of vet she is.
    End my rant.
    I know the fine is pitiful and low. At the same time he was fined. I am guessing the 2000 dollar fine was a settlement agreement. Much like vets are offered so the board doesn’t have to go through what’s going on with the cat killer in Texas.
    So like it or not justice was carried out and he cannot hide behind anonymity his face and the story are everywhere.
    Included on top of this fine will be his lawyers fees
    and any court costs that are passed onto someone in that country.
    He has a conviction that is more powerful than one on a court docket. He’s the slime that killed a cat for no reason but his own hatred. Welcome to the hall of shame Mr. Kent Wilson.

  2. Ofcourse the fine is too light. And, like you Michael, I don’t see how he was levied a fine without a conviction. Minimally, I would have liked to have seen a conviction that would have followed him for the rest of his life.
    He may not have any previous convictions; but, that doesn’t mean that he hasn’t committed previous offenses that went undetected. I, personally, believe that Mr. Wilson is a cat hater and, most likely, guilty of many previous acts of animal abuse. No one but a cat hater would take a weapon and kill a cat as a first response.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

follow it link and logo

Note: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified.

I welcome and value comments. Please share your thoughts. All comments are currently unmoderated.

This blog is seen in 199 of the world's country's according to Google Analytics which is pretty much the entire world.

Scroll to Top