Minutes of Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing)

Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing) - 11 May 2021 - Open Minutes

Agenda Items

1. Hearing Report on Menacing Dog Classification

Type of Report:	Legal
Legal Reference:	Dog Control Act 1996
Document ID:	1308031
Reporting Officer/s & Unit:	Rachael Horton, Manager Regulatory Solutions

1.1 Purpose of Report

The purpose of this report is to provide information on the menacing dog classification under s33A(1)(b) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act).

At the Meeting

Council Officer’s Report - Mr Justin Cameron, Associate, Willis Legal (Napier City Council Advocate), Rachael Horton (Manager Regulatory Solutions) and Mr David Whyte (Team Leader Animal Control)

Mr Cameron spoke to the incidents leading to the classification of Pippi directly. The submission was circulated at the meeting (Doc ID: 1314583). Mr Cameron also circulated the complainant’s, Ms Feaver’s, unsigned Formal Statement (Doc ID: 1314585), and an updated Attack Rating Evaluation (Doc ID: 1314587).

In response to questions from the panel it was clarified that:

· The classification of a dog as menacing requires the dog to be muzzled when not on their property, this is whether the dog is on or off a leash.

· The classification of a dog as dangerous requires the dog to be muzzled and always on a lead when not on their property, it also requires the dog to be contained within its property so people can reach the front door of the house without encountering the dog. This classification is not commonly used.

· There is no requirement for Pippi to be neutered as she already is.

· Mr Whyte has extensive experience in dealing with dogs and dog behaviour, with twenty years as a Police dog handler responsible for the development of young dogs and puppies.

· Ms Feaver’s complaint forms the basis of the classification of Pippi as menacing.

Mr Whyte’s observations support the classification, and his comments have enabled the level of the classification to be lowered from dangerous to menacing. No other submissions have been taken into account when classifying Pippi.

· There were numerous factors Mr Whyte considered when classifying Pippi, for example her age, observed behaviour, any recorded history of complaints, and the status of Ms Sewell as a responsible owner. These factors are looked at alongside other cases help in keeping the classification consistent.

· A classification of menacing will help Ms Sewell in the management of Pippi.

· The Panel need to consider whether Pippi could be a threat in the future, and the dog’s behaviour is a factor in assessing that threat.

· To qualify as a Responsible Dog Owner their dog must have been registered for a least two years, one of those must be in Napier. The dog owner must have a clean history with no complaints. Ms Sewell’s status as a responsible dog owner can be reinstated in two years, if she has been managing Pippi well and has had no further complaints.

· Ms Sewell has been infringed for ‘failing to confine’, this is punitive and an operational matter, as is the Responsible Dog Owner classification being revoked. The objection to the classification falls under the governance layer of Council. The aim is for Ms Sewell to be able to continue to enjoy her dog, but for the victim to be able to do that too.

· Ms Sewell engaged well with Council initially, prior to the classification, and stated Pippi had been aggressive with other dogs, even ones well known to her. In Mr Whyte’s experience female dogs at Pippi’s age can develop aggressive behaviour. Pippi’s biological brother has also displayed the same behaviour and has been withdrawn from the Police Dog Working Programme as a result.

· Ms Sewell does not dispute that Pippi left her property. She alleges that it was a collision between the two dogs rather than a bite. The Act does not differentiate between biting and any other aggressive behaviour. The allegation of a collision is not consistent with Ms Feaver’s statement, and the vets injury report.

· Ms Sewell has proposed that she keep Pippi on a lead when off her property, but Council could not enforce that unless there was further incident.

· Case law is consistent with a gate blowing open not being an exceptional circumstance, and shouldn’t be considered as such by the Panel.

· A dog suddenly attacking, due to surprise, is not expected behaviour. There may be posturing, hackles and tail up, but a small dog, as in the case of the victim’s dog, is not a threat to a larger dog like Pippi. Pippi has come from a working dog breeding kennel with the genetic trait of high prey drive.

· It is also not expected behaviour that Pippi would charge out of Ms Sewells property in pursuit of another animal.

· The fencing around Ms Sewell’s property is adequate to contain Pippi, a lot of the back fence is hidden amongst hedging, as is the gate.

· The classification is for the dog’s life. Aggressive behaviour will ease with old age, but cannot be trained out to an extent which would give confidence Pippi would not be involved in a future incident.

· Council classifies between 10 and 30 dogs as menacing per year, some because of their breed, some because of breed and behaviour. But it is usually following an incident such as this one. It is rare to have an objection to the classification.

· Statements given by others from the area indicate lesser events have occurred previously.

The Victim’s Statement:

· If she could have seen that the gate was open she would not have gone near it.

· She witnessed the attack, saw Pippi come roaring out of Ms Sewell’s property, grab Rita, her dog, and threw her in the air. Rita screamed. Pippi then went for Rita’s head. Ms Sewell came out at that point. In Ms Feaver’s view, Ms Sewell could not have seen the attack, but she would have heard Rita screaming as other neighbours down the road had.

· There was no one else in the area of the attack who could have seen it.

· When she and Mr Devereaux, her partner, went to Ms Sewell’s house to discuss the incident Ms Sewell denied Pippi had been involved in the attack.

· Rita is walking on her own now with a limp. The family’s lives have been put on hold to cater to Rita’s injuries and limitations. It has placed a financial burden on Ms Feaver, with costs at about $5000. Ms Feaver would have to go through the Disputes Tribunal if she wants to recover costs.

The Appellant’s Statement

Ms Sewell did not attend the Hearing.

ACTION: Case law on gates being left open being unexceptional to be circulated to Panel.

The Hearing moved into Deliberations while the public were excluded at 2.05 pm

The Committee’s decision is attached under separate cover.

Attachments

1 2021-05-11 Final Decision - Hearings Committee (Dog Hearing).pdf

2 2021-05-11 Dog Hearing submissions.docx

3 2021-05-11 K Feaver Formal Statement.pdf

4 2021-05-11 Updated Attack rating evaluation.pdf

The meeting closed at 2.20pm

Approved and adopted as a true and accurate record of the meeting.

Chairperson .............................................................................................................................

Date of approval ......................................................................................................................

Meeting Date:	Tuesday 11 May 2021
Time:	1.00pm – 2.20pm
Venue	Ikatere Room Level 2, Capeview Building 265 Marine Parade Napier

Present	Deputy Mayor Brosnan (In the Chair) Councillors Browne, Simpson, and Tapine
In Attendance	Manager Regulatory Solutions (Rachael Horton) Team Leader Animal Control (David Whyte) Regulatory Compliance Officer (Raymond Feierabend) Team Leader Regulatory Administration (Kathryn Hunt)
Also in Attendance	Advocate for Napier City Council (Justin Cameron – Willis Legal)
Administration	Governance Advisor (Anna Eady)