Former Carlton player is slapped with 10-year ban from owning cattle after pleading guilty to shocking animal cruelty charges
Joseph Dare, 33, joined the Carlton Football Club during the 2010 Rookie Draft but would never make a first-grade appearance for the club.
The dairy farmer, who lives in Victoria, was convicted and was also fined $75,000 for the offences, which were described by Magistrate Franz Holzer as 'one of the worst examples of animal neglect that I have seen'.
A well-known footballer among the Victorian local leagues, Dare had first faced 33 charges of animal cruelty in September. Further charges came in April, with 13 aggravated animal cruelty offences and 16 animal cruelty charges for alleged offending being made against the ex-footballer.
The incidents were said to have occurred between July 2022 and January 2024.
The Colac Magistrates Court heard accounts of how livestock had both suffered and died on his Dreeite farm.
Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action prosecutor Scott Ward told the court that his farm had been visited by officers from Agriculture Victoria on multiple occasions during that period.
He presented photographs to the court, while detailing graphic incidents where cattle had suffered or died on Dare's farm.
The charges levied included allegations that Dare had not provided appropriate care, treatment or attention to the animals and had also failed to provide his livestock with sufficient food.
Ward explained that cattle were found to have body score conditions of 0-1. Some of the animals were suffering from issues including lung disease, pneumonia, starvation, dehydration and trauma.
Speaking to the court, he said one officer had described the cows as 'walking skeletons and still had calves suckling from them.'
Officers found a total of 170 animals on the farm, however, 45 had to be euthanised.
Dare was charged with in relation to breaches of Victoria's Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986.
During sentencing, Magistrate Holzer described Dare's farm as 'animal killing fields'.
'He got animals that were unwell and then neglected them even further … that's just shameful, shameful,' the magistrate explained.
After leaving Carlton, Dare, who is the son of a dairy farmer, moved to play football for the Northern Bullants in 2011 and again moved to Cobden in 2012.
After hanging up his footy boots, Dare took up a coaching role at Alvie, going on to help the side win a premiership.
Dare told police that his business had grown from 200 milking cows to 2,000, the court was told. He had just one farmhand after losing multiple members of staff back in 2023.
But Magistrate Holzer believed that his background in farming should have meant that Dare was better able to care for his animals.
'It's such a significant departure from the standards expected,' Holzer added.
'He was growing his business too quickly, he didn't have the financial capacity … It seems to me he was out of his depth, well and truly.'
Dare had been farming in the Nalangil district, 15km from Colac.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
Australians lost $1bn through collapsed investment funds. What happened and how can workers keep their super safe?
Thousands of Australians recently lost more than $1bn in retirement savings after the collapse of funds linked to their superannuation platforms, sparking warnings from the corporate regulator about risky investment schemes. While only a small share of the population has been affected, some investors have seen their entire super balances wiped. Here is how the collapses happened, and what Australian workers can do to avoid a similar situation. Over the past year or so, more than 12,000 Australians have been exposed to three major collapsed or frozen investment schemes: First Guardian, Shield Master Fund and Australian Fiduciaries. The failures have so far led to collective losses of up to $1.2bn. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (Asic) blocked investment in Shield in February 2024 and froze the assets of First Guardian in February 2025 after its managers blocked most investors from accessing their funds in May the previous year. The corporate regulator is also investigating concerns about Australian Fiduciaries including alleged inadequate management of conflicts of interest. First Guardian, which held $505m for about 6,000 investors, described its investments as focused on shares, property, private equity and fixed income, according to federal court-appointed liquidators. The liquidators found the company had put nearly $70m into businesses connected to its directors while more than $240m was invested offshore. One director also allegedly bought a Lamborghini with nearly $550,000 of company money. Investors have been warned they will probably only get a portion of an outstanding $446m back, and not until 2027 at the earliest, after liquidators said they expected to conclude directors breached their duties, the value of investments may have been overstated and funds may not have been properly recorded. The fund's May 2024 balance sheet indicated it had grown that to $525m but more than half of that was in question and investors were not likely to recover their entire investment, receivers for Shield reported in November 2024. They found managers had overstated the value of investments in a real estate fund and nearly $7m had been spent on a former director's personal expenses. Some investments would not be recovered for more than two years, the receivers said in December. In these cases, investors switched to superannuation products that would let them invest in First Guardian or in Shield with financial advisers' help, after being cold-called by salespeople, Asic says. The corporate regulator has put the spotlight on salespeople pressuring customers to invest in specific products. Red flags for consumers include cold calling and high-pressure sales tactics, or offers of prizes, free superannuation health checks, or free consolidation of lost super, according to Asic's deputy chair, Sarah Court. 'These calls don't have the hallmarks of a typical scam. The caller will seemingly have your best interests at heart, and they say they want to help you find a better super product or locate lost super for free,' she says. 'If you are unsure or are feeling pressured, just hang up.' Customers and financial advisers reached the products through superannuation platforms, including one operated by an arm of Macquarie Group, that temporarily chose to offer one or both products, Asic says. Super funds are highly regulated and they are discouraged from investing in schemes that are risky or opaque, according to Xavier O'Halloran, the chief executive of advocacy group Super Consumers Australia. Nearly 15 million among the 18 million accounts in Australia are in MySuper products, default super funds that employers offer workers, which did not invest in the collapsed schemes, he says. While all investment carries risk, MySuper products are diversified, and so not reliant on a single investment or asset class. Some Australians invest in less scrutinised schemes, especially through self-managed super funds. Asic recently warned it had growing concerns that peoplewere being encouraged by salespeople and cold-callers to switch from safe investments into complex and risky schemes. Phil Anderson, the general manager of policy, advocacy and standards at the Financial Advice Association Australia, encourages people to research their investments and check details with their financial advisers if they're worried they might be in an inappropriate investment. 'It is quite evident that there's failings in the system,' Anderson says. 'Don't be rushed into doing something. Challenge the adviser: Why is this the right thing for me? … What track record do these investment options have?' Investors can also spread their superannuation between different investment options within or across funds to limit the chance of a single collapse knocking out their entire savings, Anderson says. Customers can check what assets their super is invested in and how it is performing when superannuation funds release their annual statements for 2024-25 in coming months. People who have been told to swap from a MySuper product can also ask their adviser if their prospective fund has been checked by the regulator, the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. Asic has encouraged those who have lost money in a collapse to make a complaint about their adviser to the sector's independent ombudsman, the Australian Financial Complaints Authority. If a customer has lost money but their advice firm has gone into liquidation or insolvency, they may be able to appeal to the sector's compensation scheme of last resort. However, not all of the losses may be recompensed. Last resort compensation payouts are capped at $150,000 per individual and would only cover any clients who accessed the products under the guidance of an adviser, meaning any customer who made the decision without advice would not be eligible. The compensator is expecting claims against advisers linked to the funds but has received no claims for Shield and only one for First Guardian, according to the scheme's chief executive, David Berry. That has made it impossible to determine how many investors will be eligible, how much they might be paid or when they might be compensated, he said. This shortfall has led to calls for increased regulation of the products responsible for the losses, known as managed investment schemes, but also for reform of the compensation scheme of last resort so it covers those who invested without advice. Guardian Australia attempted to reach representatives of the funds Shield, First Guardian and Australian Fiduciaries, including through the firms' liquidators or administrators where applicable. Financial advice firm Interprac and superannuation platform trustees Macquarie, Equity Trustees, Diversa and Netwealth each declined to comment.
The Guardian
13 hours ago
- The Guardian
Two-year-old sexually abused at family daycare by man living at the premises, mother claims
A mother has claimed her two-year-old daughter was sexually abused at a family daycare service by a man she did not know was living there. The alleged offender was the partner of the woman running the service, located at a private home in New South Wales. Police, the Department of Education and the Department of Communities and Justice investigated, but the woman told Guardian Australia that, without physical evidence, no charges were able to be laid and no action was taken against the man or the service, which is still operating. Jennifer* said her daughter Ava* was two years old and attending a family daycare centre – a service run by an individual in their home, but which still receives the federal childcare subsidy – when she started talking about interactions with a man she didn't know. Some were innocuous, others rang alarm bells. 'It was sort of like, 'Who is [this person]?' It was just a bit off, it was just strange,' said Jennifer, who says she had no idea there was a man living at the home where the service operated. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Jennifer called the woman running the centre to ask her about it. 'I, in good faith, rang [her] the next day, thinking that there would actually be an explanation for it all.' But Jennifer said the response from the woman about the man – who was the woman's partner – was defensive and angry, something that raised 'red flags' for Jennifer, so she un-enrolled Ava. In the months that followed, Jennifer said Ava's behaviour changed. 'She regressed in toilet training, she'd just become sort of more anxious than she'd ever been and getting scared all the time, like really bizarre stuff like screaming … which she'd never been before.' By this point nearly three years old, Ava then disclosed that the man had exposed himself to her and he had touched her private parts, Jennifer said. Ava's disclosures came after seeing something that reminded her of the family daycare. She told her parents that some of the incidents occurred when she was in the daycare's sleep room. Jennifer reported the alleged incidents to police, who investigated, taking a statement from Ava and from her parents. Ava had to undergo a medical assessment by a specialist doctor who deals with potential child victims of sexual abuse but there was no physical evidence of assault. The man was not charged with any offences against Ava. Jennifer said that before reporting to police, she consulted with friends in the police force, who told her that a conviction or even a charge against the man was very unlikely. 'Basically, this has been everyone's advice the whole time: you won't get a conviction unless she's got an STD, or there's semen, or physical evidence. You won't get a conviction. But if there's a record of investigation, it might help someone in 20 years' time, basically. That's what it was for … in 20 years' time, when people start reporting things … there's something on record.' Jennifer praised the police and the Department of Communities and Justice, which served as a liaison with the family and organised support, including counselling, for them, but said the process was still incredibly distressing for Ava. 'She knew what was going on. She's a pretty smart chicken. Even though she was so young, she sort of knew … she remained upset and anxious for quite some time.' An assessment of Ava's behaviour, from a new daycare service that Jennifer eventually enrolled Ava in, seen by Guardian Australia, said Ava 'shows signs of anxiety' and an 'ongoing difficulty to separate from parents' as well as 'distress around sleeping'. The education department also conducted an investigation into the childcare service after the reports were made to police but, in a summary of its findings, seen by Guardian Australia, it wrote: 'There was insufficient evidence to substantiate a breach of the National Law and Regulations. Insufficient evidence to determine [the man] posed a risk to children. No further action was taken by the department. The case was closed.' Jennifer says the department of education investigation left her with more questions. Had they looked into whether the man was present at the service when the children were there? Had they looked into whether the woman running the service left some children alone while she was getting the other children to sleep? 'Why can't they tell us these key points?' she says. 'You don't have confidence because they don't give you answers. 'The investigation… absolutely made me even more distrustful.' In response to general questions about its procedures, the NSW Early Childhood Education and Care Regulatory Authority said that if a police investigation does not result in charges, the authority still conducts its own investigation and has the power to take strong action. It said it had issued 211 prohibition notices to people working in early childhood education and care in NSW over the last four and a half years and had prosecuted 34 providers, nominated supervisors and individuals since 2021. None of the prosecutions were for incidents involving alleged sexual abuse. Family daycare centres provide care to more than 71,000 Australian children, including around 22,000 in NSW, making up 5.1% of all early childhood education and care services. The service Ava attended is still operating. Guardian Australia has not confirmed whether the man is still living at the premises. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion Jennifer said that she was shocked to learn that family daycare centres have no regulatory obligation to inform parents of who lives at the home, although every member of a household where a family daycare operates must have a working with children check. She says she had no idea that the woman running the service had a partner living in the home. 'It wasn't until Ava came home and started talking about [him], and we're like, 'Who is [this person]?'' Jennifer would like to see this change, to make it mandatory for all family daycare centres to inform parents of who lives at or will be present while their children are in care. She would like to see reform to the way investigations into those working with children – or in close proximity to them – happen, so action can be taken against people who have had credible allegations made against them, even if the level of proof does not reach that required for a criminal conviction. 'That's a hard one because, you know, you don't want innocent people to be punished,' she said. '[But] the level of evidence required for a conviction in court is so high; for beyond reasonable doubt. And when you've got no physical evidence and you've got the words of the two-year-olds, it's not going to stand up in court.' But she says the Department of Communities and Justice, when it met with the family, had a more 'child-centred' focus in talking about the case. 'They came to the house and sat down with us and went through everything and they were amazing and they explained how even though there's no evidence doesn't mean that it didn't occur. It was just more of an open finding. 'They were more believing. And so I feel like there needs to be more of a child-centred approach … rather than a criminal approach. 'I feel like whatever the DCJ were doing felt more holistic without outright coming out and saying like, yes, he's guilty.' Jennifer suggested there could be a threshold of proof, lower than the criminal threshold, that allowed regulators to take actions or impose prohibitions, when there were credible allegations. 'So maybe, I don't know, [this man] shouldn't be in the house when she's operating her family daycare,' she suggests. The incident happened a number of years ago and Jennifer says Ava is, for the most part, doing well. She has friends, thrives at sport and in school, but 'she has her moments, she'll melt down and sometimes we're like: is that part of it? Sometimes you wonder what part of the trauma carries through.' Jennifer and her partner debate what to tell Ava about it when she is older. 'That's a real struggle for us, how do we handle this in the future? Do you want to know this when you're older? Do we have a duty to tell her? It's a quagmire.' 'For my partner and I, we think about it all the time. Occasionally we say to each other, 'God, I was thinking about that today. Like, I can't believe … I've been able to hold it together.'' *Names have been changed to protect privacy In Australia, the crisis support service Lifeline is 13 11 14. If you or someone you know is affected by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit In an emergency, call 000. International helplines can be found via
Daily Mail
13 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Tense moment Aussie woman unleashes the ‘world's angriest tirade' on a terrified tradie after making a shocking discovery in her backyard
A furious mother has confronted an Endeavour Energy worker in a blazing roadside showdown, accusing him of filming her while she was semi-naked in her backyard. The dramatic clash unfolded on Tuesday in Yarramundi, in Sydney 's rural north-western outskirts, when the partially-clad woman spotted a drone hovering over her property. The enraged mum immediately pulled up her pants and jumped in her car to track down whoever was operating the drone. She eventually found an energy worker packing up his drone equipment and pulled up alongside to confront him, as her daughter filmed her as she unleashed her fury. 'You were over my f***ing house, in my backyard?' she yelled at him in the expletive-laden tirade shared online under her TikTok handle of GiddyUpQueen. 'I was in my backyard and had my f***ing pants off and you were droning there.' The worker, who introduced himself as Aaron, remained calm during the heated exchange and insisted the drone was only photographing power poles for maintenance purposes. But the barefoot woman furiously dismissed his version of events and accused him of invading her privacy as her anger boiled over in the roadside clash. The video of her tirade at the stunned worker has since racked up more than 100,000 views. 'I'm recording to ask you why you are filming out the back when I haven't got my pants on and your drone is out the back filming me?' she shouted at the worker. He tried to explain himself and said, 'Ma'am listen,' and asked, 'Why are you yelling at me?' before she cut him off. 'No, I don't want to listen,' the mum fumed. 'There is no excuse for that because you were just filming me with this f***ing thing!' The volatile scene escalated further when the woman reached into the back of the man's ute and appeared to grab at the drone. 'Ma'am, you cannot touch that, it's a federal offence,' the man said calmly, holding his hands up. 'I don't give a f**k,' she snapped back without hesitation. 'So is filming someone in their backyard.' Growing more enraged, the woman began calling the worker a 'f*** dog' repeatedly as he replied, 'Ma'am, you don't want to listen to what I have to say.' 'What could you possibly say that makes that okay?' she yelled. 'How is Endeavour Energy allowed to film naked women in their backyard?' Attempting to defuse the situation, the worker calmly explained the drone was only used to take photos, not videos, of power poles as part of an official inspection. 'My name is Aaron and I'm from Endeavour Energy. We are photographing the poles for the 2024, 2025…' he added before being cut off again. Before he could finish, the woman, dressed in jeans and a grey T-shirt, interrupted. 'You were over my f***ing house,' she shouted. 'In my backyard. I seen you. My bird was screaming and told me,' she said, referring to her pet cockatoo. 'I want to see the footage. I want to see the footage from my f***ing house. Don't tell me to calm down, I just seen a drone in my backyard and I've got no pants on.' The worker replied: 'I'm happy to show you what I can.' But the woman then told him nothing would calm her down and that she wanted the authorities involved. As the worker tapped the drone monitor in an attempt to bring up the images, the woman's patience ran out. 'What an invasion of privacy,' she yelled. 'I want to see the footage or I am calling the police out here right now and I will be telling them.' The video then cut off. The woman later posted the footage to her TikTok account, tagging Endeavour Energy, NSW Police, the AFP and multiple media outlets, using the hashtag #wewantjustice. She also added the caption: 'This morning we caught Endeavour Energy recording us with a drone in our backyard. 'There's no power poles there. He took off and didn't show us the footage.' The woman Daily Mail Australia she lost her temper because there appeared to be no oversight on what the worker was filming. 'A lone man is allowed to drone over women's backyards without supervision on what he's looking at and its not being monitored. I'm really over it ... it's only girls that live here,' she said. 'They are supposed to provide the footage and we have had no response from anyone.' But an Endeavour Energy spokesperson told Daily Mail Australia records are kept and that their pilot had been undertaking a pre-summer aerial inspection - a critical safety program that helps prevent bushfires and that no video was recorded. 'Each year we inspect over 180,000 power poles in bushfire-prone areas to safeguard customers and communities. 'In 2024, we transitioned from using helicopters to drones for quieter, more precise inspections. 'The drones are operated by licensed pilots, fly along the powerline corridor and pause at the top of each pole to capture images of the asset condition with precision, speed and minimal disruption. 'They do not record video and their technology ensures they only capture pictures of the network. They also praised Aaron's ability to remain calm during the unexpected situation. 'We commend our team member, shown in the video, for his efforts in trying to support this customer. 'Our team are always open to explaining the importance of these inspections and share the images taken, as he was trying to do here.' The woman added that she was also angry because she is of the opinion she is being bullied off her property. 'We have been subjected to (workers from) Boral (who built a concrete plant across the road) p***ing out the front of our property for three years because we asked them not to once.'
