The case centred on two dogs that escaped from their owner’s property due to an open garage door
The Supreme Court upheld a destruction order for a dog that attacked another dog and its owner, rejecting arguments that the incident involved exceptional circumstances.
The dog’s owner faced charges under the Dog Control Act 1996, which led to the destruction order. The owner argued that the circumstances of the incident did not justify the severe outcome, but all appeals at various judicial levels were unsuccessful.
The incident occurred when two dogs escaped from their owner’s property due to an open garage door. The dogs approached a person walking their leashed dog, leading to an attack where one of the escaped dogs bit the leashed dog, causing injuries that required veterinary treatment. The person was also injured while trying to protect their dog, which resulted in the need for hospital care.
The dog owner’s defence cited several circumstances, including the illness of a family member responsible for closing the garage, the unavailability of regular dog-walking services, and weather conditions that day. The owner argued these factors constituted exceptional circumstances to avoid the destruction order.
The district court initially ordered the dog’s destruction, dismissing the owner's claims of exceptional circumstances. This decision was upheld by the high court on appeal. Leave to appeal to the court of appeal was also denied, prompting an attempt to appeal directly from the high court to the supreme court.
The supreme court examined whether the high court had erred in interpreting "exceptional circumstances" under section 57(3) of the Dog Control Act. The court held that the cited circumstances related to the owner and the dog’s situation earlier in the day rather than the immediate context of the attack. It referenced precedent, establishing a two-step inquiry focusing solely on the attack’s context and the likelihood of future incidents under similar conditions. The court ruled that unrelated factors, like the owner's actions, did not meet the required threshold.
The supreme court found no fault in the high court's application of legal standards, concluding that the factors presented were not directly related to the attack itself. Consequently, the appeal lacked sufficient grounds to succeed, and the court determined there was no miscarriage of justice in the previous rulings.
