BC SPCA CEO Craig Daniell points out that Crown has set a precedent in dropping the charges against the Greater Vancouver Zoo because "Crown later decided that it was not in the public interest to pursue the case, because the Zoo eventually complied with the SPCA's orders."

To say that the Zoo complied after an SPCA order is very misleading. The Zoo had almost completed Hazina's new facility when the SPCA served an Order and then had charges laid, to a great deal of publicity.

It also contradicts past SPCA comments by the SPCA's Manager of Cruelty Investigations, Marcie Moriarty, who has said that just because the offender complies with an SPCA order does not mean that they deserve to have charges dropped. But then not many people can afford lawyer Glen Orris as the Greater Vancouver Zoo could.

But what is seriously concerning about dropping the Hazina charges is the precedent that has been set. According to Mr Daniell, Crown can drop charges if SPCA orders are complied with. Does that mean everyone who complies, or just the wealthy?

AAS warned of exactly this. We said that we doubted charges would get to trial. And we warned that the precedent that this would create could be used for animal neglectors to avoid prosecution.

See all Hazina posts at www.animaladvocates.com/seizures/gvzoo.htm