Julie Devine thought she was just keeping a harmless pet turtle.
Instead, she has ended up in Tasmania’s Supreme Court, facing a $1,000 fine and a stern reminder about Australia’s strict wildlife laws.
Devine appeared before Justice Michael Brett last week after pleading guilty to possessing a restricted animal, an offence that could have landed her 21 years behind bars.
While she won’t be spending any time behind bars, the judge said her case should be a wake-up call for anyone thinking of keeping exotic and potentially invasive pets without checking the rules first.
“I accept that you did not know, but I also suspect that having acquired a turtle, you did not make any enquiry about the lawfulness of holding it,” Justice Brett said.
“I accept that the risk was relatively low that the turtle would escape into the environment and cause damage. I am not a biological expert, I have no idea if that is a problem or not but I imagine that it is.”
The judge said his main concern was sending a clear message that Tasmania’s wildlife laws are not optional.
“If you do [commit an offence like this again], you know that you are probably in line for something much more significant than a fine,” he warned, acknowledging the penalty would cause Devine some financial pain.
“I think given that you were able to afford money to acquire and maintain this animal that you can also find the money to pay the fine.”
Devine was convicted of possessing a restricted animal and has 28 days to pay up.
