Woman who used drowning trap against mice is acquitted

An old small farm in Surnadal was hit by a mouse invasion, and the owner wore rubber boots inside because of all the mice. She had tried in vain to overcome the problem by sealing holes and cracks, ordinary mouse traps and two cats. She then made a drowning trap in the form of a bucket filled with water and antifreeze. A piece of plank led up to the edge of the bucket and up to an empty soda can threaded on a steel wire strung across the bucket. Above the bucket, a chocolate teddy bear (bamsemums) was mounted as bait, and when the mice tried to reach the bait via the soda can, it rotated and made the mice fall into the bucket and drown. In this way, she caught several hundred mice in a couple of days.

The woman was fined NOK 6,000 for violating section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act on the killing of animals. The fine was upheld by the District Court and the Court of Appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the woman should have tried electric traps, or sought professional advice, before taking the step of using a drowning trap.

Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act provides that the killing of animals must take place “having regard to the animals’ welfare”. What this entails must be assessed on an individual basis. In certain situations, killing methods that involve stress and pain may nonetheless be justifiable with regard to animal welfare within the meaning of the law, depending, among other things, on what is achievable in practice.

The provision implies that the boundary between right and wrong is based on a discretion where there is no clear answer as to where the boundary lies. Such provisions must be applied with caution when used to impose penalties. The Supreme Court emphasises the situation the woman was in, and that bucket traps have been widely used to overcome serious mouse problems. The regulations also allow for the use of poison, not least by professionals, despite the suffering that poison inflicts on the animals. The Supreme Court finds that the woman cannot be punished for using the trap, even though she did not first try the alternatives pointed out by the Court of Appeal.

The judgment provides guidance on the application of section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act on the killing of animals.

Read the whole judgment (Norwegian only) (PDF)

Areas of law: Section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act, criminal law (the application of discretionary provisions as a basis for punishment)

Key paragraphs: 20, 23-24, 31-33, 37-38

Justices: Matheson, Bull, Bergh, Thyness, Stenvik