|
|
Hearings Committee
7 July 2026
|
Part
A Reports
Menacing Classification Appeal
Department: Corporate and Regulatory
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 This
report details the Dunedin City Council’s (DCC) decision to classify the
appellant’s dog 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 the 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 dog: Misty 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; but Council considers
it 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 appellant in this matter is Miss Safire
Stenerson. Miss Stenerson is the registered owner of one dog: Misty, a white
and tan female American Staffordshire Terrier Cross aged seven years old.
6 On
20 May 2026 the DCC afterhours service received a Dog Attack- Person Request
For Service (RFS 882459) from the complainant in this matter. The report
advised that a “white and brindle staffy cross pitbull type” dog
had come into her backyard from a neighbouring property at approximately 7:50am
and attacked her. The report advised that the complainant had been bitten on
the arm and she was going to the hospital for medical treatment. The report
also advised that the dog had then attempted to attack the complainant’s partner,
biting him on his boot through the fence when he came home to stop the dog
entering their property.
7 Animal
Control Officer (ACO) Whyte called the complainant and confirmed the address of
the property where the dog had come through the hedge.
8 ACO’s
Whyte and Wedlock attended the appellant's property and spoke with the
appellant. She provided them with the details of her dog Misty, who was inside
the dwelling when they arrived. It was established that the appellant’s
dog Misty was currently registered to a different address. There was no second
dog on record.
9 The
ACO advised the appellant that the Request for Service described a white and
brindle dog leaving her property and attacking someone on a neighbouring
property. The dog Misty which was sighted at the property was white with tan
ticking and did not initially appear to match the description provided in the
RFS.
10 The
appellant advised that she had heard her dog Misty barking earlier and had
brought the dog back inside the property. However she stated she was not home
at the time of the incident itself. She advised that she did not believe her
dog would attack someone if not provoked. She also noted that the description
of a white and brindle dog did not match her dog Misty, who is white with tan
ticking.
11 ACO
Whyte obtained statements from the complainant and her partner. When they
initially called though to the DCC afterhours contact centre, the complainant
had described the dog as having brindle spots, but when she spoke to ACO Whyte,
the complainant volunteered that it was white and tan.
12 A
second dog, described as a Rottweiler puppy had also been sighted through the
fence at the appellant’s property, and then on the appellant’s
driveway behind the gate when the complainant’s partner had gone around
the street to determine the exact address of the appellant’s property.
13
The complainant provided a video still from their security camera, showing the
second dog from the appellant’s address wandering on their property the
day prior to the attack by Misty.
14 A
general statement from the complainant who was bitten by the dog is attached to
this report. It includes photos of her injuries (Attachment 1).
15 A general
statement from the partner of the complainant, who also witnessed further
aggressive behaviour from the dog is attached to this report (Attachment 2).
16 Following
their clarification of the dog's appearance, the complainants were confident
that the dog involved in the incident had come from the appellant's property.
17 Based
on her investigation, despite the initial discrepancy in the attacking
dog’s description ACO Whyte was satisfied that the dog involved in the
incident was the dog Misty, residing at the appellant's property.
18 On 25 May
2026, after reviewing the investigation details with ACO Whyte, the Animal
Services Team Leader Cazna Savell determined that the dog posed a risk to the
public and issued the dog Misty with a Menacing Classification under section
33A of the Act.
19 ACO Whyte
completed a DCC Dog Attack Pack file. This file contains the complainant
details, appellant details, dog details, photos, text communication with the
appellant, assessment matrix, recommendations and outcome (Attachment 3).
20 A statement
outlining the facts leading to the issuing of the Menacing Dog Classification
has been prepared by ACO Whyte and is attached to this report (Attachment 4).
21 The Notice
of Menacing Dog Classification was prepared and is dated 25 May 2026
(Attachment 5).
22 On 25 May
2026 ACO Whyte also issued a fencing order under the DCC Dog Control Bylaw 2024
to the appellant requiring her to complete repairs of the fence to ensure the
appellant’s dog could be adequately contained. An infringement was also
issued under Section 52A for failure to keep controlled/confined (Attachment 6).
23 The
Menacing Classification Notice together with information regarding the effects
of classification and advising of the right to object to classification was
hand delivered to Miss Stenerson’s letterbox on 25 May 2026.
24 Section 33B
of the Act provides that an owner may within 14 days of receiving notice of
classification object to that classification (Attachment 7).
25 On 29 May
2026 Miss Stenerson wrote to the DCC via email objecting to that classification
under Section 33(B) of the Dog Control Act (Attachment 8).
OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
26 On 29 May
2026 DCC received a further Request for Service (RFS 884037) from the
complainant in this matter who advised that the dog at the appellant’s
address had acted aggressively towards her partner again while he was adjusting
the boards on their property.
27 The
complainant confirmed the dog had not left the appellant’s property this
time, but it was the dog that had attacked her and her partner on 20 May
2026. A copy of this RFS record is attached to this report (Attachment 9).
28 On 24 June
2026, ACOs Whyte and Tatham attended the appellant’s property for a
pre-arranged follow up visit to check on fencing progress. ACO Tatham reported
that when the appellant’s dog Misty was brought out by the appellant to
get scanned for a microchip, the appellant’s dog acted aggressively
towards him, attempting to bite him twice on the leg. Contact was made, however
it did not break the skin due to his protective clothing and he was not
injured. A copy of this report is attached to the document (Attachment 10).
DISCUSSION
29 ACO Whyte
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.
30 The
complainant will speak to her statement detailing the behaviour of the dog
Misty toward her on her property on 20 May 2026.
31 ACO Tatham
will provide evidence to the committee of his interaction with the dog on Misty
on 24 June 2026 where he observed further aggressive behaviour.
32 The purpose
of this Committee hearing is to decide whether the DCC’s classification
of menacing in respect of the appellant’s dog is just and reasonable
under the circumstances and whether that decision should be upheld.
33 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.
OPTIONS
Option One –
34 Recommended
Option Uphold the decision to classify the appellant’s dog Misty as
menacing pursuant to section 33B (2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.
Advantages
· The risk to the public is reduced.
· Misty will be required to be neutered.
Disadvantages
· There are no known disadvantages.
Option Two –
35 Rescind the
decision to classify the appellant’s dog Misty as menacing pursuant to
section 33B (2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.
Advantages
· There are no known advantages.
Disadvantages
· Misty will continue to be a risk to the
public.
NEXT STEPS
36 Give
written notice to the appellant of:
a) its
determination of the objection; and
b) the
reasons for the determination
Signatories
|
Author:
|
Cazna Savell - Team Leader Animal Services
|
|
Authoriser:
|
Bonnie Wright - Manager Compliance Solutions
Paul Henderson - General Manager Corporate and Regulatory
Services
|
Attachments
|
|
Title
|
Page
|
|
⇩a
|
Attachment 1-
Complainant statement
|
13
|
|
⇩b
|
Attachment 2-
Complainant 2 Statement
|
16
|
|
⇩c
|
Attachment 3- RFS 882459
Attack Pack File
|
18
|
|
⇩d
|
Attachment 4- ACO KW
statement
|
36
|
|
⇩e
|
Attachment 5- Menacing
Classification
|
40
|
|
⇩f
|
Attachment 6- ACO
fencing order
|
42
|
|
⇩g
|
Attachment 7- Dog
Control Act Section 33
|
47
|
|
⇩h
|
Attachment 8- Emailed
Hearing request
|
48
|
|
⇩i
|
Attachment 9- RFS
884037 file
|
50
|
|
⇩j
|
Attachment 10- RFS
888574 file
|
53
|
|
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
|
