The order was appropriate given the dog's history of rushing at people: court
The High Court upheld a destruction order for a menacing dog, finding the owner repeatedly failed to comply with the Dog Control Act, including controlling the dog after multiple aggressive incidents.
The dog, a Bull Mastiff cross named Taika, was ordered to be destroyed following multiple incidents involving aggressive behaviour, including rushing at a man and his dog in a public space. The appellant, Taika’s owner, had pleaded guilty to three charges under the act, including failing to comply with a menacing dog classification by not muzzling Taika in public, failing to register the dog, and owning a dog that rushed at a person and their dog, causing them to be endangered.
In December 2023, Taika, who was not muzzled, escaped the owner's grip during a walk and rushed toward a man and his leashed dog at a beach in Bell Block. Another dog accompanying Taika bit the complainant on the knee and attacked his dog, causing injuries requiring veterinary treatment. A bystander intervened to stop Taika from joining the attack.
Latest News
The District Court sentenced the owner to a $250 fine and ordered Taika’s destruction, citing the owner’s repeated non-compliance with regulations for owning a menacing dog.
On appeal, the owner argued that the District Court judge was unclear about the charges, did not adequately consider the owner's affidavit, and denied his lawyer an opportunity to make oral submissions. The owner also applied for a discharge without conviction, seeking to avoid the destruction order.
The High Court rejected these arguments, finding no errors in the sentencing process. The court concluded that while the District Court judge initially misstated the charge, the sentencing decision was ultimately based on the correct facts and legal framework.
The High Court also found that the destruction order was appropriate given Taika’s history of rushing at people, including two prior incidents that resulted in warnings and a menacing dog classification. Despite legal obligations, the owner failed to muzzle or properly control Taika, demonstrating an ongoing inability to manage the dog’s behaviour.
The court also declined the owner’s late request for a discharge without conviction, noting that the destruction of the dog was a direct and proportionate consequence of the offence. The court highlighted the public safety focus of the Dog Control Act and the owner's lack of insight into Taika’s behaviour, which posed a risk of future incidents.