Can A Public Defender Have A Pet?
In recent years we have made significant progress in legal matters regarding the protection of animals. However, animal abuse continues to be a sad reality in Spain, and it accumulates thousands of complaints every year. For this reason, many animal defenders wonder if it is possible to grant a public defender to defend a pet.
This is a complex issue in Spanish law, which is the legal personality attributed to animals. In principle, it seems logical that it is only possible to attribute a public defender to a being who has his rights recognized before the law. If not, why would they resort to justice?
With this in mind, it is appropriate to start by talking about how animals appear in Spanish law. The next thing is to analyze whether it is possible for a pet to be represented by a legal professional.
The legal status of animals in Spanish law
It was not many years ago that the Spanish Penal Code began to treat animal abuse and abandonment as crimes, for which economic sanctions and prison sentences can be applied. In fact, it was only in 2015 that acts of cruelty towards animals stopped going completely unpunished in the eyes of the Justice.
Despite this fundamental (and late) advance, the Spanish Civil Code continued to give animals the legal status of ‘movable property’. On the one hand, this meant that they could be subject to liens and mortgages, like a vehicle.
On the other hand (much more alarming), this status alienated the animals from any cognitive or emotional faculties, such as the ability to feel. After all, objects or things do not experience pain, much less emotions of their own.
In this context, the welfare of a pet was hardly considered during a judicial or administrative process, especially if it implied infringing the freedom of each person to use their property. In other words, the right to property recognized to the human being would always prevail, and not the physical and emotional integrity of an animal that lacked a legal framework.
The arrival of change: animals as sentient beings
In 2017, the proposed law to modify the Civil Code, the Mortgage Law and the Civil Procedure Law on the legal regime of animals was approved. Its main objective was to generate a special judicial status for companion animals, to recognize them as beings endowed with sensitivity.
This means a fundamental step so that animal welfare has to be taken into consideration with public policies and legal actions. But, in addition (and above all), it means a sine qua non condition to continue fighting for the legal recognition of animal rights.
However, the proposition has a number of limitations. First of all, it applies only to domestic pets; In other words, wild and farm animals can continue to be understood as movable property. And, secondly, it is not enough to ‘prove’ that pets have certain natural or acquired rights before the Justice.
Now, what does all this have to do with the possibility of granting a public defender to a pet. Next, we analyze how the situation is today.
So can a pet have a lawyer?
Under current Spanish law, the answer is: no! Although it is recognized that the State and its corresponding agencies and actors must protect animals, it is not yet possible to grant a public defender to a pet.
Basically, because animal rights are not yet recognized by Spanish law. For this reason, a dog or a cat cannot have an active voice in the courts through a lawyer, but the protection of their well-being is carried out in a passive and indirect way.
This situation is different in countries like Switzerland, which are already more advanced in animal law, whereby the state may even grant a public defender to a pet to defend its integrity. Although this possibility is usually reserved for extreme cases of serious abuse that threaten the survival of the animal.
Apart from what the law says, we must also pay attention to public opinion. It still sounds strange to many people that a pet can have a voice in court.
However, if abusers have the right to a lawyer to defend themselves, even in situations of obvious abuse, why should we deny the possibility of representation to the real victims, which are animals?
