Agenda of Hearings Committee - Tuesday, 25 February 2025

RECOMMENDATIONS

That the Committee:

a) Upholds the decision to disqualify the appellant from dog ownership pursuant to section 25 of the Dog Control Act 1996.

b) Upholds the decision to disqualify the appellant from dog ownership for a period of three years commencing from 02 August 2024, being the date the infringement of offence under the Dog Control Act was issued.

c) Provides the appellant, as soon as practicable, with a written decision which contains the reasons for its decision and advises of the statutory right of appeal of that decision

THE LAW

5 It is an infringement offence under section 52A of the Act for a dog owner to fail to ensure that their dog is confined within land or premises occupied by it’s owner so that it cannot freely leave.

6 Section 25(1)(a) of the Act provides that a territorial authority must disqualify a person from being an owner if the person commits 3 or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months.

7 Section 25(2)(c) of the Act provides, a person must be treated as having committed an infringement offence if the person has been ordered to pay a fine and costs under section 78A(1) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957 or is deemed to have been ordered to do so under section 21(5) of that Act, in respect of the offence.

8 The mandatory requirement does not apply if the territorial authority is satisfied that the circumstances of the offence do not warrant disqualification; or where the territorial authority will instead classify the owner as a probationary owner (Section 25(1A)). (A person classified as a probationary owner may be required to undergo dog owner education or dog obedience courses and dispose of any unregistered dog and prevented from keeping any new dogs.)

9 Section 25(3) of the Act provides that disqualification continues in force for period specified by the territorial authority not exceeding five years from the date of the offence.

10 A person disqualified under section 25, may make a written objection to the disqualification and is entitled to be heard in support of the objection. An objection 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. (Section 26(1)(2)).

11 A person who has lodged an objection under s26 of the Act and is dissatisfied with the decision of the territorial authority may, within 14 days of the date of receiving that decision, appeal to the District Court against that decision. (Section 27)

12 A person disqualified from owning a dog must within 14 days dispose of every dog they own and not subsequently be in possession of any other dog. A dog cannot be disposed of to any person living at the same address. Where an objection is made, the owner does not have to dispose of their dog until 14 days after receiving the decision regarding their objection. Failure to dispose of a dog is an offence. (Section 28).

(Attachment A: relevant sections of the Dog Control Act 1996)

BACKGROUND

13 The appellant in this matter is Ricky Bailey, of Dunedin.

14 Mr Bailey is currently recorded as the owner of four dogs:

i. “Ragnor” a neutered male, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier, classified as menacing by action, registered.

ii. “Casper”, an entire male, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier, registered.

iii. “Shadow’”, an entire male, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier, registered,

iv. “Dog 1” sex and name unknown, also blue American Staffordshire, not registered.

15 Mr Bailey has also previously registered four other dogs in the past twenty-four months, which he has advised DCC have been rehomed:

i. “Roxy” neutered female, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier, classified as dangerous

ii. “Maddi” unneutered female, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier, classified as menacing by action.

iii. “Dozer” an entire male, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier

iv. “Blue” an entire male, blue American Staffordshire-Terrier

16 Between 10 January 2024 and 23 August 2024, the Dunedin City Council received 13 complaints about dogs owned by Mr Bailey. A copy of the DCC’s Pathway owner record for a history of complaints received in respect of all of the dogs which were recorded as owned by the appellant during this timeframe is attached.

(Attachment B: Pathway owner record)

17 Animal Control officers investigating each of these complaints found that on multiple occasions, dogs belonging to Mr Bailey had left his property, were seen wandering on the surrounding streets, and had attacked chickens and other dogs, and acted aggressively towards members of the public.

18 As a result of these investigations, Mr Bailey was issued four infringement notices for the offence of failing to keep a dog controlled or confined within land or premises occupied by it’s owner on separate occasions;

10/01/2024- Failure to keep dog controlled or confined #12231

22/01/2024- Failure to keep dog controlled or confined #12239

19/05/2024- Failure to keep dog controlled or confined #12420

23/07/2024- Failure to keep dog controlled or confined #12443

(Attachment C: copies of infringements)

19 On 25 October 2024, Animal Services Team Leader Cazna Savell reviewed Mr Bailey’s history of complaints and confirmed that he had received four infringements within a 24-month time frame, and that each had been transferred to Ministry of Justice and ordered to pay under section 78A(1) of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.

20 On 25 October 2024 Ms Savell made the decision to issue Mr Bailey with a notice disqualifying him from dog ownership from 02 August 2024- 01 August 2027, a period of three years from the issue date the last infringement was transferred to the Ministry of Justice and confirmed as a fine. A copy of the above notice was served to Mr Bailey’s address on the 25 October 2024.

(Attachment D: Disqualification notice)

21 On 08 November 2024, the DCC received a written objection to his disqualification from dog ownership from Mr Bailey.

(Attachment E: Written objection to disqualification)

DISCUSSION

22 Ms Savell has prepared a statement setting out the DCC’s reasons for making the decision to disqualify the appellant from dog ownership for a period of three years. A copy of this statement is attached. (Attachment F: Team leader Statement)The DCC was not satisfied that the circumstances of the offences were such that Mr Bailey should be classified as a probationary owner in terms of s25(1A) of the Act, but rather that disqualification was warranted.

23 Accordingly the DCC determined that disqualification in terms of s25(1) was required and that given the nature of the infringement offences, a disqualification period of three years, out of a maximum disqualification period of 5 years, was reasonable and appropriate.

24 The purpose of this Committee hearing is to decide whether the DCC’s decision to disqualify the appellant from dog ownership, and for the period set out, is just and reasonable under the circumstances and whether that decision should be upheld.

25 In considering any objection, s25(3) of the Act requires that the territorial authority shall have regard to:

a. The circumstances and name of the 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 advances in support of the objection;

e. and any other relevant matters.

OPTIONS Option One – Recommended Option

Uphold the decision to disqualify the appellant from dog ownership for a period of three years, commencing from 02 August 2024-01 August 2027Advantages

· The risk to the public and other animals will be reduced significantly.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages.

Option Two –

26 Uphold the decision to disqualify the appellant from dog ownership. Bring forward the date of termination to a period of fewer than three years.

Advantages

· The risk to the public and other animals will be reduced.

Disadvantages

· There are no known disadvantages

Option Three –

27 Immediately terminate the decision to disqualify the appellant.

Advantages

· There are no known advantages.

Disadvantages

· Dogs owned by the appellant will continue to pose 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 - Compliance Solutions Manager (Acting)
Authoriser:	Paul Henderson - General Manager Customer and Regulatory (Acting)

Attachments

	Title	Page
⇩a	Dog Control Act 1996- Sections 25-28, 52A	14
⇩b	Pathway-Owner record of complaints	17
⇩c	Copies of Infringements	19
⇩d	Disqualification Notice	23
⇩e	Written objection to disqualification	25
⇩f	Statement of Team Leader- Animal Services	26

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	☐	☐	✔

There is no contribution to the Strategic Framework

Māori Impact Statement

There are no known impacts for Māori

Sustainability

There are no impacts for sustainability

Zero carbon

There are no known impacts for Zero carbon policy

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

Hearings Committee

25 February 2025

Dog Control Act 1996

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.

26 Objection to disqualification

(1) Every person disqualified under section 25—

(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

(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.

27 Appeal to District Court

(1) Any person who has lodged an objection under section 26 and is dissatisfied with the decision of the territorial authority may, within 14 days of the date on which notice of that decision is, under section 26(4), given to that person, appeal to the District Court against that decision.

(2) The District Court, in hearing the appeal, shall consider the matters specified in section 26(3) and any submission by the territorial authority in support of its decision, and may uphold the determination, bring forward the date of termination, or immediately terminate the disqualification.

28 Effect of disqualification

(1) Subject to this section, if a person is disqualified from owning a dog under section 25 the person must,—

(a) within 14 days of the date on which notice of the decision is given to the person, dispose of every dog owned by the person; and

(b) not subsequently be in possession of a dog at any time, except for the purpose of—

(i) preventing a dog from causing injury, damage, or distress; or

(ii) returning, within 72 hours, a lost dog to the territorial authority for the purpose of restoring the dog to its owner.

(2) Every dog disposed of under subsection (1)(a)—

(a) shall be disposed of in a manner that does not constitute an offence against this or any other Act; and

(b) shall not be disposed of to any person who resides at the same address as the person disqualified.

(3) Where any person has, within 14 days after the date on which the notice of disqualification under section 25(4) is given to that person, lodged an objection under section 26, subsection (1) of this section shall apply in relation to that person as if the reference in that subsection to section 25(4) were a reference to section 26(4).

(4) Where any person has, within 14 days after the date on which the notice under section 26(4) is given to that person in respect of an objection to which subsection (3) of this section refers, lodged an appeal under section 27, subsection (1) of this section shall apply in relation to that person as if the reference in that subsection to the date on which the notice under section 25(4) was given to that person were a reference to the date of the decision of the District Court on that appeal.

(5) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 who—

(a) fails to comply with subsection (1); or

(b) fails, in disposing of a dog under subsection (1), to comply with subsection (2); or

(d) disposes or gives custody or possession of any dog to any person, knowing that person to be disqualified under section 25.

(6) Where any person is convicted of an offence against paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of subsection (5), the territorial authority may extend the period of disqualification of that person until a date not later than 5 years after the date on which the offence occurred.

(7) Where any person fails to comply with subsection (1), any dog control officer may seize any dog owned by that person and, for that purpose, may, at any reasonable time, with all persons he or she calls to his or her assistance, enter onto the land or premises, including any dwellinghouse, of the owner of the dog.

52A Control of dog on owner’s property

(1) This section applies when a dog is on land or premises occupied by its owner.

(2) The owner of a dog must, at all times, ensure that either—

(a) the dog is under the direct control of a person; or

(b) the dog is confined within the land or premises in such a manner that it cannot freely leave the land or premises.

(3) Every person commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $3,000 who fails to comply with subsection (2).

(4) If a person fails to comply with subsection (2), a dog control officer or dog ranger may—

(a) seize and impound the dog; and

(b) for the purposes of paragraph (a), enter, at any reasonable time, the land or premises (except a dwellinghouse) owned or occupied by the owner of the dog.