|
At the Meeting
The Chair introduced the parties to
the Hearing, witnesses and Mr Stuart Hylton, external advisor to the Panel.
The Chair then explained the process of the Hearing, and that it was a
quasi-judicial proceeding with no cross-examination of witnesses.
Council Advocate – Ms Hayleigh
Brereton
Ms Brereton spoke to the Council
submission, noting that the dog Paige had been classified as menacing under
section 33a(1)(b) of the Dog Control Act (‘the Act’). Mrs Sturm
had lodged an objection to this classification, which is now considered by
the Committee under section 33b of the Act.
Ms Brereton reviewed the attack and
events that led to the classification, including a dog attack evaluation
undertaken by Warranted Animal Control Officer Vanessa Gray, in accordance
with SOLGM best practice guidelines. The evaluation matrix produced a score
of 31, for which the recommended actions include “menacing or dangerous
dog classification and or infringement”. Accordingly the classification
notice was issued and an infringement levied for failure to control the dog.
Under the terms of the classification
as defined in the Act, the owner must not allow the dog to be at large unless
confined or muzzled.
Since the classification in May 2017,
there have been 3 further complaints regarding the dog Paige including that
the dog had been unmuzzled in public on at least two occasions in July 2017
and that the dog had menaced another dog in August 2017.
Council Officers had recommended that
the dog undertake chicken aversion therapy but is unaware that this step has
been undertaken by the Appellant to date.
The first Witness was called to speak.
Witness – Mr Mark Scott
Mr Scott spoke to his submission, highlighting
the following points:
·
The dog
Paige was seized by Animal Control following an attack on a number of
chickens on 16 May 2017.
·
There
had been a previous attack on their chickens in April 2017 but no dog was
apprehended at that point. Mr Scott stated his belief that the same dog was
responsible for the earlier attack also.
·
Mr
Scott and a neighbor in the area had seen a Jack Russell terrier roaming the
area on one occasion each since the May incident. They are concerned that
this was the dog Paige who remains inadequately secured despite the
classification.
·
Mr
Scott advised that he was aware of occasions where the dog had been in public
unmuzzled and that he was deeply unhappy that the owner was not respecting
the requirements of the dog classification.
·
The
events had been very distressing for his family and a neighbouring family who
had also owned some of the chickens attacked by the dog. Several of the
chickens had been children’s pets.
·
Mr
Scott stated his strong preference that the menacing dog classification be
upheld by the Committee, or that more stringent measures be taken in the form
of destruction of the dog.
The second Witness was called to
speak.
Witness – Mrs Gill Mockford
Mrs Mockford spoke to her submission
and that of her daughter, highlighting the following points:
·
The
attack on the chickens had been extremely distressing for her family. Several
of the chickens had been her daughter’s pets and her daughter was
extremely distraught at what had occurred.
·
Mrs
Mockford had seen no evidence to support the claim that the dog was no longer
menacing. In the last four weeks Mrs Sturm had been seen in public twice with
the dog unmuzzled. In one instance Mrs Sturm had been unable to control the
dog and it attacked another dog that was on its own property.
·
A lack
of respect for the rules had already been demonstrated by Mrs Sturm, and Mrs
Mockford was concerned that even if the Classification was upheld that the
rules would continue to be ignored. She asked what would happen if this did
occur.
·
Mrs
Mockford asked the Committee to remove and destroy the dog, based on the lack
of demonstrated compliance by the owner.
Questions of the Committee to Council
Advocate and Witnesses
In response to questions from the
Committee, it was clarified that:
·
The
penalty for having an unmuzzled dog that has been classified as menacing is a
fine. To date no fine has been levied as Officers have been waiting for the
decision of this Hearing before proceeding to address the further complaints
received since May 2017.
·
Mr
Scott had chased a Jack Russell terrier from his property once since May 2017
and another neighbour had chased a Jack Russell terrier from the same area
since May. Neither had been able to positively identify the dog as Paige but
both believed it was most likely.
The Appellant was invited to speak.
Appellant – Mrs Marion Sturm
Mrs Sturm spoke to her submission,
highlighting the following points:
·
The dog
Paige has worn the required muzzle on all but two occasions. One of those
occasions she (Mrs Sturm) had been ill and left the muzzle in the car
accidently.
·
On the
second occasion Paige was in the back of the car on her lead while Mrs Sturm
was talking to a woman in her neighbourhood, following which Paige was
brought out to greet the woman’s dog at the agreement of the woman. The
woman happened to turn her back and the dogs had a snarling match. Mrs Sturm
expressed the view that it is was generally the dog whose territory it was
that began such behaviour, to protect its property. It had definitely not
been an attack on the other dog by Paige. When it had occurred, Mrs Sturm had
picked Paige up and put her in the back of the car again. Mrs Sturm agreed
that she had made a lighthearted remark at the time along the lines of
chastising Paige for bad behaviour when she was trying to prove that she was
a good dog. She had not expected that the incident would be reported as a dog
attack by Paige.
·
Mrs
Paige accepted that the attack of the 16 May 2017 should not have happened
and felt regret about it, but felt that the fencing of the chickens was
inadequate as Paige could not jump very high.
·
Following
the attack in May, Mrs Sturm had created a secure area for Paige outside with
two gates and a retaining wall. Paige had attempted to get out but had not
been able to. Mrs Sturm referred the committee to the photographs she had
provided of the area.
·
The
classification had meant a complete change in lifestyle for both the dog and
herself; the dog was always on a lead and completely isolated at home.
Questions of the Committee
In response to questions from the
Committee:
·
Mr Mark
Scott was requested to describe the fencing of his chicken housing. He
advised that the fencing was standard rural fencing for cattle or sheep (as
opposed to deer fencing) with chicken wire wrapped around the enclosure. The
pipe gate was about one metre high by one metre wide and also had mesh
through it. The fencing was approximately one metre high. He noted his
understanding that Jack Russell terriers could jump six foot fencing.
·
Mrs
Sturm confirmed that Paige did enjoy hunting small prey in the empty sections
next to her property but was now confined to the property.
·
The two
occasions where she had breached the classification requirements to muzzle
the dog occurred a) because she was ill and had forgotten the muzzle, and b)
when Paige was in the boot of the car on a lead and it didn’t; occur to
Mrs Sturm that a muzzle was required in that instance.
·
Mrs
Sturm had not undertaken chicken aversion therapy to date, despite the Animal
Control Officer’s recommendation as she did not believe it was
necessary. She had paid the $200 fine for the time Paige was roaming and
Paige no longer was able to do so.
·
Mrs
Sturm had not attended any training courses with Paige, and believed she was
a firm and responsible owner having had dogs including working dogs for 46
years.
·
Paige
did not jump and Mrs Sturm did not believe that she had jumped the fencing
even in the case of the attack on the chickens. She reiterated her belief
that the fencing must be inadequate.
·
Mrs
Sturm advised the secure enclosure was not in place at the time of the attack
on the chickens but had been constructed since. Mrs Sturm did not believe
that Paige could jump on the nearby chairs (in place so she could keep Paige
company while outside) to get out of the enclosure.
·
Mrs
Sturm advised there were no further occasions where Paige had been unmuzzled
other than the two identified by third parties that Mrs Sturm raised to the
Committee.
Status of Recommendation
The Committee asked the Council
Advocate whether, on the evidence produced today, there were any grounds in
her view to rescind the classification.
Ms Brereton advised that there had
been no evidence produced that would lead her to recommend that the Committee
rescind the classification.
At the request of the Committee, the
Council Advocate provided the reasoning behind this position, noting that Mrs
Sturm had objected to the classification on four grounds:
1. The
roaming will not recur
2. Mrs
Sturm is organising for aversion therapy regards chickens
3. The
dog has never menaced any human or other dog
4. When
exercising, the dog is on lead and under full control
The Chair noted that the Committee had
to make its decision based on the evidence that was presented and any
mitigating actions that had or had not been taken by Mrs Sturm. Any possible
future mitigating actions could not be included within their
deliberations.
Ms Brereton noted that chicken
aversion therapy had not taken place, that there was an existing complaint
from the time period following the classification that Paige had menaced
another dog, and that there was insufficient evidence that roaming has or
will not recur and that the dog is under full control when exercising.
The Open Hearing was closed at 2.57pm.
The deliberations of the Committee
were taken in committee.
Deliberations
The Committee reviewed the evidence as
it had been presented at the Hearing.
It was noted that the witnesses
requests to destroy the dog were out of the scope of this Hearing.
The implications of either rescinding
or upholding the classification were considered by the Committee.
The decision of the Committee and
supporting reasoning is outlined in the resolution of the Committee.
|
NAPIER
CITY COUNCIL