I cannot emphasise enough the absolute disgust of the judiciaries' sentencing (a suspended jail term) of Luna's offender yesterday-15th May 2017, which I know so many of you will no doubt feel the same. My thoughts are with Bridgette and family at this very difficult time. This is exactly why this petition was created, because the appalling state of animal welfare in WA and the continuous lack of enforcement of penalties by the judiciary under the Act. Now we need change more than ever, in order for justice to prevail. If you have 5 minutes I would urge you to write to the Attorney General- John Quigley to raise your concerns. minister.quigley@dpc.wa.gov.au Feel free to use the wording below: Dear John, The people of Perth and Western Australia are appalled to learn of the judiciaries’ decision yesterday- 15th June 2017 that the offender who fatally stabbed Luna, the beloved family Labrador has effectively been given a warning/slap on the wrist, in the form of a suspended jail sentence. This is especially in light of the brutality of the crime and the strong public awareness, media coverage and momentum in the last month from both an online and paper petition to review the Animal Welfare Act 2002 and for the judiciary to enforce harsher penalties, which combined has nearly 21,000 supporters, the majority of whom are from Western Australia. The paper version was tabled this week at both the Legislative Assembly and Legislative Council of Parliament. The feeling has resonated with many supporters, like I, who believe that the Act is dated and does not provide animals with adequate protection and I would go as far to say, it fails them in many cases. The outcome of Luna’s case only highlights this. The fact remains that current penalties are too lenient, they are not a true reflection of the crimes committed and they certainly do not deter animal cruelty. The judiciaries’ inability to issue penalties that reflect the severity of these crimes and apply the current Act, make animal welfare in Western Australia a hopeless cause. It is no wonder animal cruelty remains high in Western Australia, when little is being done by the judiciary to enforce the penalties of the current Act and deter potential offenders. What is the point of having an Act, which states ‘up to five years in prison’, if in fact it is rarely, if ever imposed. I have heard of one case earlier this year in the south-west of WA where two men brutally killed a kangaroo, one of whom was sentenced for up to a year. It was the first case that I have heard of in 10 or many years where justice had prevailed. However in May this year when a quokka on Rottnest Island was brutally attacked, a monetary fine issued by the judiciary was considered sufficient. The outcome of Luna is another example of the judiciary failing to apply the penalties in the Act, that do not reflect the severity of the crime committed. The comparative penal inconsistencies attributed to such severe crimes remain bewildering and all too apparent. A slap on the wrist: in terms of suspended jail terms, where offenders quite literally walk free, monetary fines, temporary animal bans and community service is simply not enough, it doesn't prevent or deter animal cruelty, if anything it continues to set the precedence that harming an animal is ok, because as the judiciary, state government and general public know there aren't any real repercussions for animal cruelty. It is about time the judiciary reviewed the penalties framework for which the Act is applied and enforced tougher measures including permanent animals bans and prison time without parole. In the case of Luna, the people of Perth and Western Australia are gravely concerned and disgusted how a person could carry a dangerous weapon in public, commit a brutal crime, get issued a warning (suspended jail term) and then be released back into the community. It is easy to say that self-defence was the motive, but one has to question the state of mind of a person who feels it necessary to carry a knife on their person and use it in haste to eliminate a perceived threat with no immediate thought of remorse. As many people know what happened to this animal could easily have been a child or adult. It is safe to assume that the judiciary would have undoubtedly taken a much harsher approach if this had been the case. Life is precious and once unlawfully taken should be punishable by the harshest measures of the Act. There should be no second chances. Kind Regards,