Hasselt (Brussels Morning Newspaper) – The former slaughterhouse located in Hasselt secured its freedom from animal abuse charges after a court ruled Animal Rights obtained the evidence illegally. The video clip featuring the cruel treatment of calves first became public in December 2018, yet faced legal restrictions to serve as evidence.
Judges at the Hasselt slaughterhouse acquitted the facility on appeal of animal abuse charges after the same verdict emerged from the initial court decisions. Withdrawal of animal mistreatment charges occurred because Animal Rights exposed severe calf maltreatment before slaughter in their released footage.
The recorded material revealed that workers shocked calves with electricity in sensitive body regions while using tranquilliser weapons improperly. The court decided to exclude the recorded footage because it had been acquired unlawfully. Animal Rights expressed disappointment, stating,
“The worst thing is that the facts themselves were not discussed.”
The animal rights organisation Animal Rights released the video footage to the public in December 2018 after recording it at the VanDrie slaughterhouse in Hasselt in September of that same year. The video evidence caused widespread public anger that triggered legal actions against VanDrie Belgium due to animal welfare violations.
The Hasselt criminal court issued its ruling on October 2023 and decided to free the company due to its determination that the evidence collection procedures broke the law. Animal Rights faced rejection of their subsequent appeal, which the Public Prosecution Service refused to pursue in January of 2024. Lawyer Anthony Godfroid criticised this decision, remarking,
“Abused animals… never belong to the complainant but to the abuser.“
It is a dramatic example, according to a lawyer for animal rights.
“Abused animals, whether they are seen in illegal images or not, never belong to the complainant, but to the abuser. They will never report themselves. People assume that the animals can stand up for themselves. That is absurd, especially since animal protection is now in the constitution.”
Animal Rights is now considering whether to abandon the fight against VanDrie.
“We can still go to the Court of Cassation. We now have 2 weeks to study the case and we will do so thoroughly,”
Concludes Godfroid.
Luk Delbrouck, the lawyer who represents Vandrie, is satisfied with the judge’s reasoning.
“You can’t accuse someone of not following the rules, if you don’t do it yourself. An association like Animal Rights doesn’t have the right to break into the company to install cameras. We were already very satisfied with the decision of the Public Prosecution Service. Now the judge in the court of appeal has also followed our vision. We are happy with that.“
What are the broader implications of this case?
Animal welfare violations have become a high-profile case in Belgium in recent years. An Izegem slaughterhouse received a €12,000 fine when hidden cameras uncovered rampant mistreatment, which involved workers using brutality towards animals before performing unauthorised killings without using anaesthesia. The evidence obtained in this similar situation, like Hasselt, became unusable due to unconstitutional methods of collection.
Organisations that advocate for animal rights face mounting obstacles when pursuing their roles as civil parties before judicial bodies. In 2023, a Newfoundland court reversed the acquittal decision for animal cruelty charges against dog owners after confirming the previous rulings failed to detect obvious animal suffering.
Global challenges emerge from the attempt to combine legal protocols with ethical considerations regarding animal protection throughout the world, and Belgium specifically struggles to enforce its animal welfare legislation even with increased public awareness. The Federal Agency for Food Chain Safety (AFSCA) has detected many violations during the last few years yet faces insufficient legal authority to conduct prosecutions.
