Knoesen gets suspended sentence for killing kelpie Faith

Faith briefly regained consciousness before Bradley Gavin Knoesen killed her. The one-year-old kelpie had been repeatedly submerged in water; after she was revived, Knoesen beat her to death with a glass bottle, the sentencing court heard.⁠¹

Magistrate Donna Webb described the attack as torture. But the sentence she imposed at Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court on November 5 does not require Knoesen to begin an immediate prison term: the 31-year-old British backpacker received 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months, after pleading guilty to causing an animal unnecessary harm. Prosecutors had asked for immediate imprisonment.⁠¹

That outcome needs two distinctions kept intact. A suspended prison term is not the same as no prison sentence. And avoiding an immediate term does not mean Knoesen has spent no time in custody: he had been held since the September 23 attack and appeared for sentencing by video from Eastern Goldfields Regional Prison. He did not speak during the hearing.⁠¹

The sentencing details rest on ABC News’s contemporaneous court report. Its account describes repeated violence, with opportunities to stop—not a single fatal blow. After killing Faith, Knoesen tied her body to his motorbike and dragged it through bushland on the outskirts of Kalgoorlie, in Western Australia’s Goldfields.⁠¹

His cousin was present. Knoesen repeatedly invited him to join in; instead, the cousin asked him to stop and wept uncontrollably as the attack unfolded. Police prosecutor Amy Southall said Knoesen wanted Faith’s owner to see what he had done to the dog. The owner was not the cousin, and Knoesen’s connection to that person remained unclear in court. The statement is evidence of what Knoesen said, not a complete explanation of his motive.⁠¹

Defence lawyer Anthony Eyers described his client as a “dog lover” whose behaviour was “out of character”. He told the court Knoesen was a university graduate with a computer science degree. Southall rejected the characterisation of his conduct: “It was absolutely gratuitous and unnecessary … shocking behaviour,” she said. “Not the actions of a dog lover.”⁠¹

The court heard that Knoesen had consumed an “extreme amount of alcohol” with his cousin. Webb did not accept intoxication as an explanation. She described Faith’s death as “protracted”, said the offence had outraged the public and compared it with the worst animal-cruelty cases seen in the state. Addressing the defence, she said: “Your client appeared to be incredibly determined to kill this animal.”⁠¹

Webb nevertheless suspended the sentence, pointing to Supreme Court decisions in other animal-cruelty cases. Those decisions are the explanation reported for the outcome—not acceptance of the defence’s description of Knoesen as a dog lover, nor a finding that alcohol excused him. The magistrate’s assessment of the violence was severe; the punishment she selected did not require an immediate prison term.⁠¹

The available court account does not identify the particular Supreme Court decisions or reproduce the full sentencing reasons. That limits how far the outcome can be explained. It would be unwarranted to say those precedents left Webb no choice, or to reconstruct a detailed balancing exercise that has not been published in the available reporting.

Western Australia’s Sentencing Act allows imprisonment to be suspended even where the court considers a prison term appropriate. Section 76 requires that imprisonment would have been appropriate if suspension were unavailable. The legal mechanism therefore permits the apparent contrast here: a court can condemn an offence in strong terms, impose imprisonment and suspend its operation. Twelve months suspended for 12 months means a one-year prison term held in suspense for a one-year period—not a combined two-year prison sentence.⁠³

For ordinary suspended sentences, section 78 provides for further court action when a person is convicted of another offence committed during the suspension period, provided that offence carries a possible prison penalty. The relevant timing is when the new offence was committed. That trigger does not, by itself, establish how much of the suspended term a court would order to be served.⁠⁴

There are also limits to what can be said about this particular order. The sentencing report does not establish a precise calculation of credit for Knoesen’s pre-sentence custody, additional conditions or whether an animal-ownership prohibition was imposed. His custody since September 23 is reported; the detailed treatment of that custody in the sentence is not.⁠¹

Knoesen arrived in Australia in April on a working holiday visa. He had been living with his aunt and cousin in Kalgoorlie and working as an underground truck driver in the mining industry. Eyers told the court his client was likely to be deported. That was the defence lawyer’s expectation, not an announced government decision.⁠¹

ABC reported that it had contacted the Department of Home Affairs for comment. Its sentencing account establishes no visa cancellation, immigration-detention decision, removal decision or completed deportation. There is no confirmed date on which Knoesen must leave Australia.⁠¹

The criminal charge has reached a guilty plea and sentence. His immigration future has not reached a confirmed public outcome. Treating those as separate questions is essential: the court has imposed its punishment, but the lawyer’s prediction does not settle what the government will do next.