31 May 2022
Applying the Hill two‑stage test, the Court held the circumstances of the attacks were not exceptional because the owner failed to keep the dogs under control, the risk of repeat attacks on future escape was neither remote nor immaterial, and therefore destruction under s57(3) was justified; the destruction order was not manifestly excessive and the appeal failed.
31 Aug 2021
The High Court held that a conviction under s57(2) is not a prerequisite to a destruction order under s57(3); the court retained power to make the mandatory destruction order after the District Court's dismissal because the omission to make the order could be corrected under the statutory corrective power (s180 CPA) and functional finality did not oust jurisdiction where an order was legally required; natural justice was satisfied because the actual owner was able to give evidence and make submissions; on the facts the circumstances were not 'exceptional' and the destruction order was properl…
10 Mar 2021
The High Court refused to admit the proffered affidavits and building report because they were not shown to be fresh, contained inadmissible hearsay and unsworn/unqualified material and were not sufficiently cogent or credible; and even if admitted the material would not have displaced the statutory presumption in s57(3) because a speculative third‑party theory did not reach the high threshold of exceptional circumstances established in case law, so the destruction order was upheld.
15 Dec 2020
The High Court concluded that the appellant's evidence raised a real question as to whether exceptional circumstances might exist but there was insufficient material before the courts to conclude the circumstances were exceptional; therefore the mandatory destruction order under s57(3) was quashed and the matter was remitted to the District Court for rehearing with directions that the appellant provide affidavit and expert evidence.