16 Nov 2022
The appeal is dismissed: the attack established an ongoing risk of repeat harm, no exceptional circumstances under s57(3) were proved to avoid destruction, the warrant authorising seizure was valid and in any event its validity did not affect the charge arising from the 25 December 2021 attack, and the reparation and medical cost orders were appropriate and proportionate to the harm.
31 Aug 2022
The s21 Summary Proceedings Act 1957 process is automatic and does not require the defendant's consent; the applicant had opportunities to request a hearing and could not avoid the statutory process by asserting lack of consent or sovereign status; the judicial review application was dismissed and the Court awarded costs to the second respondent.
30 Nov 2021
The High Court held that a destruction order under s57(3) is an integral element of sentencing and requires a conviction; on the facts the dog showed a pattern of unprovoked attacks and the owner failed to mitigate risk, so the circumstances were not exceptional and destruction was justified; appeal dismissed.
12 Aug 2021
Application for leave to appeal dismissed because the strict liability character of s57(2) is settled by authority, the facts (failure to muzzle a menacing dog) meant the outcome would not change even if negligence were required, and there is no risk of miscarriage of justice or matter of public importance to justify grant of leave.
12 Mar 2021
The Court dismissed the appeal because the offence under s57 is strict liability as established by the Court of Appeal, the appellant entered an informed guilty plea appreciating the inevitable destruction order and accepted the facts demonstrating inadequate fencing, so no miscarriage of justice arose; conviction and mandatory destruction order therefore stand.
3 Feb 2021
Applying Auckland Council v Hill, the circumstances of the attack were not exceptional, post-attack measures and a one-off gate failure are not sufficient to satisfy s57(3), and therefore the statutory default of destruction applies to both dogs.
16 Nov 2020
Appeal dismissed. The appellant was aware of the risk of destruction from charge documents and, because s57(2) is strict liability and ownership plus attack were established, there was no realistic prospect of acquittal had he pleaded not guilty; further, the circumstances of the attack were not "exceptional" under the Hill test (ordinary failures to control and unproven medical conditions do not meet the threshold), so the mandatory destruction order under s57(3) must stand.
19 Oct 2020
Appeal dismissed: appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving 'exceptional' circumstances under s57(3) Dog Control Act 1996; immediate circumstances showed an unprovoked bite with the dog off lead and muzzle not properly deployed and contemporaneous medical records and photographs supported the complainant's account; appellant's chronic non-appearance and lack of credible fresh evidence justified refusal to adjourn and upholding the destruction order.
23 Dec 2019
The starting point of 18 months' imprisonment adopted by the District Court was excessive for the facts and comparable authorities; an uplift of three months for general prior convictions was not justified because the prior convictions did not show a predilection for dog offending; accordingly the appropriate nominal sentence was 15 months' imprisonment, commuted to eight months' home detention; the District Court's order for $5,000 reparation stands notwithstanding the sentencing Judge's apparent change of view.
2 Aug 2018
The proceeding was an abuse of process because the matters complained of had been finally determined by the District Court and on appeal to the High Court and Court of Appeal; res judicata bars relitigation and therefore the statement of claim must be struck out; costs awarded to the Council on a 2B basis.