According to the case study, it is recognized that the judge ordered a suppression order to a drug that is used by Dr. Emily Bird on her emus. As the court observes that the drug contains a special type of steroid, hence the court finds that it is cruelty to the animals and it is considered as an offense. Dr. Emily Bird used these drugs on her emus to make them strong enough that they can pull the carriage. However, in this way, she reduces their life span and prospects of life. Hence, it is considered as the cruel action against the emus which are her pet animals. However, as per Sally, the drug, which was suppressed by the court, was XPT123, and the drug is famous for having a special cancer healing features of this drugs. However, one of the ingredients of the drug named XPT123 is plants nectar, and the name of the plant is Fucicia Curela. The people thought that plant was extinct, but as Emily use the drug hence, the plant must be there from where Emily found it and use it as a medicine for her emus (Choo, 2014). Moreover, as per the argument of Sally, as the drug has the cancer healing property, then why the court has suppressed it and why the people cannot use these important drugs.
The court uses to suppress a drug as per the Australian constitutional legislation in case the drug has a severe side effect on the users, and the users have to face daring consequences after using the drug. Here in this case as the court found that the drug use by Emily contains special type of steroid and which has a severe adverse effect on the users. Moreover, as per the case study, Emily applies this drug named XPT123, which contained a steroid and used on the animal to make them strong. The drug initially makes the animal strong, but in the long run, it reduces the life span of the animals because of the adverse effect of the medicine. In this ground, the court issued a suppression order for the drug as the court find that administration of this drug on the emus is a form of cruelty on the animals, which cannot be tolerated and as per the Australian constitutional legislation the court suppressed the drug named XPT123.