Legal Battle Over Molly the Magpie Sparks Debate on Wildlife Protection

Related Articles


The ongoing saga of Molly the Magpie has taken a significant turn as a prominent legal team prepares to challenge the bird’s return to a Gold Coast couple in Australia’s Supreme Court.

script type="text/javascript"> atOptions = { 'key' : 'b9117458396fd1972f19bab359dbc64a', 'format' : 'iframe', 'height' : 90, 'width' : 728, 'params' : {} }; document.write('');

The case raises concerns about the country’s approach to wildlife protection, with parallels drawn to the United States, where wild animals like big cats are sometimes kept as pets.

XD Law & Advocacy, known for representing high-profile clients such as Defence Force whistleblower David McBride and YouTube personality Jordan Shanks, is now tackling this controversial case.

The firm is representing an unnamed applicant, challenging the Department of Environment’s (DESI) decision to return Molly to her original caretakers, Juliette Wells and Reece Mortensen. According to lawyer Jack Vaughan, the case isn’t about Molly herself but the precedent that could be set for handling native wildlife in Australia.

script type="text/javascript"> atOptions = { 'key' : 'b9117458396fd1972f19bab359dbc64a', 'format' : 'iframe', 'height' : 90, 'width' : 728, 'params' : {} }; document.write('');

The dispute began when DESI ordered the surrender of Molly, a magpie who had gained social media fame thanks to the couple’s posts featuring their dogs, Peggy and Ruby.

The bird had allegedly been taken from the wild without proper permits or licensing. However, after significant public outcry and media attention, Queensland’s Deputy Premier Steven Miles intervened, and Molly was returned to the couple under specific conditions. These included obtaining a wildlife license and agreeing not to profit from Molly’s popularity.

Vaughan argues that the decision to return Molly was politically motivated, driven by media pressure rather than the law. He expressed concerns about the broader implications of the case, stating that it sets a dangerous precedent that could undermine existing wildlife regulations in Australia.

script type="text/javascript"> atOptions = { 'key' : 'b9117458396fd1972f19bab359dbc64a', 'format' : 'iframe', 'height' : 90, 'width' : 728, 'params' : {} }; document.write('');

DESI maintains that the decision to return Molly was made per the Nature Conservation Act 1992. However, with a legal challenge on the horizon, the case could have far-reaching consequences for how native wildlife is treated in Australia. Meanwhile, Wells and Mortensen, who say they simply want to raise awareness for wildlife Conservation, continue to draw attention as the case heads to court.

This article by Trinity Sparke  was first published by One Green Planet on 28 September 2024. Image Credit :Henk Vrieselaar/Shutterstock.

What you can do

Help to save wildlife by donating as little as $1 – It only takes a minute.






More on this topic

Comments

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Popular stories