I found the following article, a letter to a parliamentary official, about "Sir Alf R." who I assume to be ?????? Perhaps catspaw49 wasn't kidding about the dog molesting as you see. Locations and date make it probable. Surprises me that more wasn't made of it at the time.







Dear Lord Richland:

        I am a board certified criminal prosecutor In Ipswich with over 12 years experience and approximately 150 trials to my credit. I write in support of Rule of Law #744 and in order to advocate for the necessity of this new law, I will start briefly by explaining one such case I have handled recently in this jurisdiction.



        In late 1964, I prosecuted the case of QB v. Sir Alf R., Circuit Case Number 2005-CF-3027. Sir R. had been charged by law enforcement with Felony Animal Cruelty, though the charge if available should have been Bestiality or Sexual Activity Involving an Animal. I will not go into the disgusting facts of the case other than to say Sir Alf R. was having sexual relations with his male dog, an English Cocker Spaniel. The complainant in the case called the police when she observed Sir R. fondling the dog. I will leave off further discussion by simply stating that in subsequent discussions with law enforcement, Sir Alf R. spoke freely about his regular sexual activities with his dog and said he would take the dog for a walk prior to sex to "prevent fecal impact." I have attached a copy of the probable cause (with the complainant's name omitted) so the facts can speak for themselves. As you can see, law enforcement incorrectly advised Sir Alf R. that they were investigating bestiality and that "it was a felony crime."



        We did our best to pursue the case on the charge of Animal Cruelty but this charge was not the best vehicle to properly address the crimes of nature committed by this Defendant. On the charge of Felony Animal Cruelty, the prosecution is required to prove a defendant intentionally committed an act against an animal which resulted in the cruel death or excessive or repeated infliction of unnecessary pain or suffering. For Misdemeanor Animal Cruelty, the prosecution must show the person has caused the animal to be overworked, deprived of sustenance or shelter, or unnecessarily mutilates, kills or carries any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner. I can easily envision such a case of Bestiality being charged as Animal Cruelty before the trier of fact, be it a judge or a jury, and the Defense expert veterinarian testifying that although he finds "the Defendant's behavior shocking and disgusting, the animal was unharmed and otherwise well cared for." If such a case ever made it to trial, the resulting acquittal would be an easy lesson for the prosecutor to learn.



        Other than the tenuous charge of Animal Cruelty, the only other means of addressing this crime of nature would be as a questionable misdemeanor offense under Stat. Section 755.01 which adopts the Common Law of England. Like most civilized nations, our legal forbearers understandably saw fit to address bestiality in the criminal courts. If this theory of the law were pursued, prosecutors would be left to attempt to utilize ancient English Law to address this criminal conduct. Such a prosecutor would clearly have an uphill battle. Although case law provides for application of the Common Law of England in some situations, I can envision much mention of our Declaration of Independence and the fact that "we make our own laws here" during pretrial motion arguments. A resulting dismissal of the charges would be understandable under this scenario.



        What we often hear in the legal realm is that "if the Parliament wanted something to be a crime then they would have passed a law against it." Litigants can rarely argue that the failure to pass a law was merely a timing or funding issue or that it would have been passed if we did not have financial troubles. If the Parliament does anything, it should use a small portion of its time to pass one of the most unanimously uncontested laws in recent history. There cannot possibly be any rational opponent of this bill.



        It is unseemly that a person can knowingly sexually violate any animal of their choice and this does not, by itself, seem to be against the law without some type of creative and possibly tenuous prosecution. The most important consideration for the Committee to address, however, is the impact this crime of nature could have on humans.



        The clear status of our law at this point is that Parliament has not prohibited bestiality. Bestiality is currently legal. As shocking as this is for the public to learn when such cases come to light, it would be even more shocking for the public to discover that a proposed bill was actually before this PArliamentary Justice Committee and the Committee failed to take any action to move this forward.   Acting on such an uncontested issue should use minimal time and resources compared to the many other issues that remain contested or debatable before you.



                                                                Respectfully,

                                                                Michael J. Bauer

       Ipswich Solicitor

       December, 1966