New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dog destruction orders

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2023

WHITE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2080

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2080
Court

High Court

Although the District Court erred in considering prior history as part of the circumstances, under Auckland Council v Hill the focus is on whether the immediate circumstances of the attack were exceptional; here the dogs were off‑lead, got ahead of the owner and attacked livestock—facts that are not exceptional—so destruction under s 57(3) was mandatory; no material error on appeal justified substituting the sentence, therefore the destruction orders are upheld.
28 Mar 2023

HETHERINGTON v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (Appeal against conviction and sentence) [2023] NZHC 641

Citation

[2023] NZHC 641
Court

High Court

The trial judge's factual and credibility findings that both dogs attacked were not demonstrably erroneous; the photographic evidence and rapid sequence of events supported those findings. Applying the two-step test from Auckland Council v Hill, the immediate circumstances of the attack were not exceptional and did not make the risk of a repeat attack remote; therefore s 57(3) required an order for destruction of Louie and the destruction order was upheld.
31 May 2022

CROSS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1243

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1243
Court

High Court

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.
30 Nov 2021

ADAMS v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3254

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3254
Court

High Court

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.
29 May 2020

INGLE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1164

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1164
Court

High Court

Conviction is not a prerequisite to an order for destruction under s57(3); the statutory text and the 2003 amendments indicate the court must consider the immediate circumstances of the attack and, absent exceptional circumstances rendering repeat risk remote, order destruction; applying that test here the circumstances were not exceptional and the destruction order and refusal to discharge without conviction were correctly made.
8 Jul 2019

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v HILL [2019] NZCA 296

Citation

[2019] NZCA 296
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that an order for destruction under s57(3) is criminal in nature and falls within the definition of a sentence in the Criminal Procedure Act 2011, so an appeal lies by leave under s253(2) CPA; further, the question whether post-attack events can be taken into account when determining whether circumstances are exceptional under s57(3) raises matters of general and public importance and leave to appeal on that question is granted.

New Zealand Case Law

WHITE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2023] NZHC 2080

HETHERINGTON v FAR NORTH DISTRICT COUNCIL (Appeal against conviction and sentence) [2023] NZHC 641

CROSS v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 1243

ADAMS v SOUTH TARANAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3254

INGLE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2020] NZHC 1164

AUCKLAND COUNCIL v HILL [2019] NZCA 296