Hearings Committee

(Dog Hearing)

Open Agenda


Meeting Date:

Thursday 9 November 2017




Breakout Room 2
Napier Conference Centre
Marine Parade



Council Members

Councillor Jeffery (In the Chair) Councillors White and Wise

Officer Responsible

Director City Strategy


Governance Team


Next Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing) Meeting to be confirmed




Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing) - 09 November 2017 - Open Agenda




Conflicts of interest

Public forum


Announcements by the Chairperson

Announcements by management

Agenda items

1      Objection to Disqualification from Dog Ownership under s26 of the Dog Control Act 1966….3  

Public Excluded


Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing) - 09 November 2017 - Open Agenda                                                                                                                   Item 1

Agenda Items


1.    Objection to Disqualification from Dog Ownership under s26 of the Dog Control Act 1966

Type of Report:


Legal Reference:

Dog Control Act  1996

Document ID:


Reporting Officer/s & Unit:

Richard Munneke, Director City Strategy


1.1   Purpose of Report

The Hearings Committee has been delegated, by Council, the power to hear, consider and decide objections made under section 33B of the Dog Control Act 1996 (‘the Act’).


An objection has been made in response to disqualification from dog ownership under s26 of the Act, by Isabell Povey and Jamie Kenward, thus requiring a hearing.


1.2   Background Summary

Ms Povey and Mr Kenward were notified that they were disqualified from dog ownership on the 2 August 2017, following on from the conviction in the Napier District Court for an offence under section 57(2) of owning a dog that attacked a person. 

The conviction related to an incident involving Ms Povey and Mr Kenwards’ dogs “Roman” and “Zeus” who attacked an Animal Control Officer. The disqualification period imposed was a period of 4 years, which was effective from the date of the offence, being 17 January 2017.

The disqualification from ownership was imposed under section 25 of the Act, which states:

Section 25 - Disqualification of owners

(1) A territorial authority must disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog if—

        (a) the person commits 3 or more infringement offences (not relating to a single                       incident or occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months; or

(b) the person is convicted of an offence (not being an infringement offence) against this Act; or

(c) the person is convicted of an offence against Part 1 or Part 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, section 26ZZP of the Conservation Act 1987, or section 56I of the National Parks Act 1980.

(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the territorial authority is satisfied that the circumstances of the offence or offences are such that—

(a) disqualification is not warranted; or

(b) the territorial authority will instead classify the person as a probationary owner under section 21.

(2)   For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), a person must be treated as having committed an infringement offence if—

(a) that person has been ordered to pay a fine and costs under section 375 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, or is deemed to have been so ordered under section 21(5) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957; or

(b) the infringement fee specified on the infringement notice in respect of the offence issued to the person under section 66 has been paid.

(3)   A disqualification under subsection (1) continues in force for a period specified by the territorial authority not exceeding 5 years from the date of the third infringement offence or offences (as the case may be) in respect of which the person is disqualified.

(4)   If a person is disqualified under subsection (1), the territorial authority must, as soon as practicable, give written notice in the prescribed form to the person of that decision.

1.3   The Objection

Ms Povey and Mr Kenward have objected to the disqualification pursuant to section 26 of the Act.

Ms Povey and Mr Kenwards objection was received by Council on the 14 August 2017.

The objection details the following reasons;

1.   Mr Fisher and Ms Povey are competent dog owners

2.   They have taken all steps to remedy any issues

3.   The offence was not serious

1.4   Hearings Committee jurisdiction

In considering the objection, the Committee must have regard to the matters set out in section 26(3) of the Act. Section 26 states as follows;

26. Objection to disqualification

(1)   Every person disqualified under section 25 of this Act –

(a) may object to the disqualification by lodging with the territorial authority a written objection to the disqualification; and

(b) shall be entitled to be heard in support of the objection.

(2)   An objection under this section may be lodged at any time but no objection shall be lodged within 12 months of the hearing of any previous objection to the disqualification.

(3)   In considering any objection under this section, the territorial authority shall have regard to:

(a) the circumstances and nature of the offence or offences in respect of which the person was disqualified; and

(b) the competency of the person objecting in terms of responsible dog ownership; and

        (c) any steps taken by the owner to prevent further offences; and

        (d) the matters advanced in support of the objection; and

        (e) any other relevant matters.


(4)   In determining any objection, the territorial authority may uphold, bring forward the date of termination, or immediately terminate the disqualification of any person and shall give written notice of its decision, the reasons for it, and the right of appeal under section 27 to the objector.


1.5   Attachments

a     Notice of Disqualification from Dog Ownership

b     Objection to s25 Disqualification   

Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing) - 9 November 2017 - Attachments


Item 1

Attachments a



Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing) - 9 November 2017 - Attachments


Item 1

Attachments b