|
|
Hearings Committee
3 September 2024
|
Part
A Reports
Menacing Classification Appeal
Department: Customer and Regulatory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This
report details the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) decision to classify the
appellant’s two dogs as menacing pursuant to section 33A(2) of the Dog
Control Act 1996 (The Act).
2 This
report is prepared in response to the appellant’s objection to the
menacing classification and details the process by which the menacing
classification was made and contains the evidence gathered by the DCC Animal
Services team in respect of that decision.
3 The
Hearings Committee in accordance with the Council's Committee Structure and
Delegations Manual has the delegation to hear and determine objections for
classification of dogs as menacing under the Dog Control Act 1996. The objection
will be heard under the provisions of Section 33B(1) of the Act and the owner
of the dog has right to be heard in support of the objection.
4 The
role of the Committee is to consider whether to uphold or to rescind the
menacing dog classification.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That the Committee:
a) Upholds the decision to classify the
appellant’s two dogs; River and Charlie as menacing pursuant to section
33B(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.
b) Provides the appellant, as soon as
practicable, with a written decision which contains the reasons for its
determination.
BACKGROUND
5 Section
33A(1) of the Act provides that Council may classify a dog as menacing that has
not been classified as a dangerous dog under section 31; where the
Council considers the dog may pose a threat to any person, stock, poultry,
domestic animal, or protected wildlife because of any observed or reported
behaviour of the dog.If a dog is classified as a menacing dog under Section 33A,
the dog is required to be muzzled
in public places unless they are in a cage, confined in a vehicle, inside a
dwelling house, inside the dog owner’s property, or inside another
person's fenced property with the consent of that person. The Council can
also require that dogs classified as menacing are neutered and require the
owner to provide a certificate issued by a vet to certify this has occurred. The
appellant in this matter is Miss Michaela Anderton. Miss Anderton is the
registered owner to two dogs: River, an entire male Huntaway-Golden retriever
Cross aged two years and six months and Charlie, a female un-neutered Labrador
Retriever aged one year and two months.
6 On
Saturday 01 June 2024 at 10:36am the DCC afterhours service received a Lost Dog
report from Miss Anderton advising that her two dogs, River and Charlie had
gone missing from the Tomahawk Beach area at approximately 8:30am.
7 Later
that same day at 2:03pm the DCC afterhours service received a Dog Attack-Other
Request for Service from the complainants in this matter. The report advised
that two dogs had been secured at their property, and they reported that the
dogs had attacked sheep.
8 The
Request for Service was attended by an Armourguard Dog Ranger who secured the
dogs in his van and contacted Animal Control Officer (ACO) Janine Day to meet
him at the DCC pound. [Armourguard is contracted to the DCC for the provision
of dog control and other services and relevant staff are warranted as Dog
Rangers under s12 of the Act.]
9 The
two dogs were impounded by ACO Day and she started an investigation into the
incident.
10 On Tuesday
04 June 2024 the DCC received further information from a witness who had been
present at Tomahawk Lagoon the previous day. He stated that he had seen
the dogs running up the track at Tomahawk Lagoon catchment and he saw the dogs
enter the complainants’ paddock He stated he had found a dead swan at the
Tomahawk Lagoon catchment.
11 On Tuesday
04 June 2024 the DCC received an email from the Otago Regional Council (ORC)
reporting that a total of six dead swans had been found in the Tomahawk Lagoon
area and were believed to be showing evidence of dog bites. ORC has provided
the DCC with photos taken of the dead swans on 03 June 2024 which are included
in the Animal Attack Pack.
12 As part of
the investigation into this complaint, ACO Day spoke to the complainant, the
dog owner Michaela Anderton and the witness who had alerted the complainant to
the dogs being on his property. ACO Day completed the DCC Attack Pack. This
pack contains the complainant details, dog owner details, dog details, emailed
communication from the witness and dog owner, assessments and recommendations and
outcome. (Attachment 1)
13 On 04 June
2024 ACO Day issued the dog owner with a $200 infringement under s53 of the Act
for failing to keep dog under control. This was paid on 04 July 2024
14 On Tuesday
04 June 2024, after reviewing the investigation details with ACO Day, the
Animal Services Team Leader Cazna Savell determined that the two dogs should be
classified and issued the two dogs with a Menacing Classification under s 33A
of the Act.
15 A Notice of
classification was prepared and is dated 04 June 2024.
16 The
Menacing Classification Notice together with information regarding the effects
of classification and advising of the right to object to classification was
posted to Miss Anderton on 11 June 2024.
17 A statement
outlining the facts leading to the issuing of the Menacing Dog Classification
has been prepared by ACO Day; The officer’s statement which annexes the
Attack Pack, DCC records is attached to this report. (Attachment 2)
18 A
statement from the complainant who witnessed the dogs attacking his sheep is
attached to this this report. (Attachment 3)
19 Section 33B
of the Act provides that an owner may within 14 days of receiving notice of
classification object to that classification. (Attachment 4)
20 On Tuesday
25 June 2024 Miss Anderton wrote to the DCC via email objecting to that
classification under Section 33(B) of the Dog Control Act. (Attachment 5)
DISCUSSION
21 ACO Day
will provide evidence to the Committee of her investigation and explain the
process used with the implementation of the Attack Pack as a means of
determining the outcome of an investigation.
22 Complainant,
will provide a statement detailing the behaviour of the dogs River and Charlie,
towards his stock, which he witnessed on his property on 01 June 2024.
23 The purpose
of this Committee hearing is to decide whether the DCC’s classification
of menacing in respect of both of the appellant’s dogs is just and
reasonable under the circumstances and whether that decision should be upheld.
24 The object
of the Dog Control Act 1996 is:
a) To make better provision
for the care and control of dogs-
(iv) By
imposing on owners of dogs obligations designed to ensure that dogs do not
injure, endanger, or cause distress to any stock, poultry, domestic animal or
protected wildlife.
25 Any
decision of the Committee must be made in regards to:
a) The
evidence presented which formed the basis of the DCC decision to classify the
dogs as menacing: and
b) any steps
taken by the owner to prevent any threat to the safety of persons or animals;
and
c) the
matters relied on in support of the objection; and
d) any other
relevant matters
OPTIONS Option One – Recommended Option
26 Uphold the
decision to classify the appellant’s two dogs: River and Charlie as
menacing pursuant to section 33B (2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.
Advantages
· The risk to the public and
other animals is reduced significantly.
· If classified as menacing, the
classification applies throughout New Zealand.
Disadvantages
· There are no known
disadvantages.
Option Two –
27 Rescind the
decision to classify the appellant’s two dogs: River and Charlie as
menacing pursuant to section 33B (2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.
Advantages
· There are
no known advantages.
Disadvantages
· River and
Charlie may continue to be a risk to the public and other animals.
NEXT STEPS
28 The
Committee must give written notice to the appellant of:
a) its
determination of the objection; and
b) the
reasons for the determination
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Cazna Savell - Animal Services Team Leader
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Paul Henderson - General Manager Customer and Regulatory
(Acting)
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Attachment 1: Attack
Pack Documents 1A-1H
|
14
|
|
⇩b
|
Attachment 2: Statament
of ACO Janine Day
|
42
|
|
⇩c
|
Attachment 3: General
Statement of Complanaint
|
46
|
|
⇩d
|
Attachment 4: Sections
33A and 33B of the Dog Control Act 1996
|
48
|
|
⇩e
|
Attachment 5: Letter of
objection to Menacing Classiifcation from dog owner Michaela Anderton
|
50
|
|
SUMMARY OF CONSIDERATIONS
|
|
Fit with purpose of Local Government
This decision enables democratic local
decision making and action by, and on behalf of communities.
|
|
Fit with strategic framework
|
|
Contributes
|
Detracts
|
Not applicable
|
|
Social Wellbeing Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Economic Development Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Environment Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Arts and Culture Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
3 Waters Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Future Development Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Integrated Transport Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Parks and Recreation Strategy
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
Other strategic projects/policies/plans
|
☐
|
☐
|
✔
|
|
|
Māori Impact Statement
There
are no known impacts for Māori
|
|
Sustainability
There
are no implications for sustainability
|
|
LTP/Annual Plan / Financial Strategy /Infrastructure
Strategy
There
are no implications for the LPT/Annual Plan/Financial Strategy/Infrastructure
Strategy
|
|
Financial considerations
There are no financial considerations
|
|
Significance
While the
public will have a general interest in the objects of the Dog Control Act
1996, specific community interest in this case is low. This decision is
considered low in terms of the Council’s Significance and Engagement
Policy
|
|
Engagement – external
There has been no external engagement
|
|
Engagement - internal
There has been no internal engagement
|
|
Risks: Legal / Health and Safety etc.
There are no identified risks
|
|
Conflict of Interest
There is no conflict of interest
|
|
Community Boards
There
are no implications for Community Boards
|
