New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Destruction orders

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2023

ROBERT TELFORD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 31

Citation

[2023] NZHC 31
Court

High Court

A conviction of the dog's owner is a precondition to making a destruction order under s57(3) Dog Control Act 1996; however the court retains a residual discretion under s106(3)(c) Sentencing Act 2002 to order destruction after granting a discharge without conviction where the destruction order would have been mandatory on conviction, and on the facts the High Court declined to exercise that discretion and quashed the District Court destruction order.
25 Jun 2021

HAENGA v PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1549

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1549
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Dog Control Act offences are strict liability subject to a total absence of fault defence and the Fairweather 'control' test is not a statutory element; on the facts the appellant summoned his dog to attack while he was the aggressor so there were no exceptional circumstances and both conviction and destruction order were upheld.
1 Jul 2020

VAN DER VEEN v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1534

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1534
Court

High Court

Section 57(3) requires destruction unless the circumstances at the time of the offence were exceptional; post-attack rehabilitation or assurances are irrelevant to that inquiry; a one-off failure to maintain effective control and an unprovoked attack in public are not exceptional, therefore the mandatory destruction order was correctly imposed.
12 Mar 2020

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v HILL [2020] NZCA 52

Citation

[2020] 3 NZLR 603
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that for s 57(3) the relevant "circumstances of the offence" are the immediate circumstances of the attack itself (equivalent to "circumstances of the attack"); events occurring after the attack (post‑attack training, changed management, assurances) are not part of those circumstances and therefore cannot justify avoiding a destruction order; on the facts the attack was unprovoked and nothing exceptional justified not ordering destruction.
22 Jun 2018

R v BLANCE [2018] NZHC 1518

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1518
Court

High Court

For supply of approximately 15 kilograms of methamphetamine the appropriate starting point is 18 years' imprisonment; an uplift of one year was applied for associated firearms and dishonesty, producing a 19-year starting point. The defendant was given a 4-year reduction for a guilty plea entered after full disclosure and delay and a further six month reduction for personal mitigation (health, addiction, rehabilitation steps), resulting in an effective sentence of 14 years and six months' imprisonment. A minimum period of imprisonment of 7 years and 3 months (50%) was imposed. Other sentences…
17 Nov 2017

WALKER v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZCA 526

Citation

[2017] NZCA 526
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court refused leave because the applicant's statutory interpretation argument lacked merit: the extended definition of "owner" imports control and does not exclude an owner from being the person attacked under s 57(1)(a), the Act supports strict liability and mandatory destruction absent exceptional circumstances, and the s 237 high threshold was not met as there was no matter of general/public importance nor any real or likely miscarriage of justice.

New Zealand Case Law

ROBERT TELFORD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 31

HAENGA v PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 1549

VAN DER VEEN v CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1534

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v HILL [2020] NZCA 52

R v BLANCE [2018] NZHC 1518

WALKER v NELSON CITY COUNCIL [2017] NZCA 526