The Court: Ringwood Magistrates Court
The Lawyer: Michelle Pavlica
The Charges:
The Allegations:
The client owned a Pit Bull Terrier, a restricted breed dog. The client was at work when the dog escaped from the home and roamed the street. It attacked another dog being walked on a leash by its owner in a nearby park. The owner of the other dog also suffered minor injuries while trying to separate the dogs.
Restricted-breed dogs must be registered with the council. Fortunately, the client had complied with registration procedures for restricted-breed dogs. However, the legislation imposes harsher penalties for people who own dangerous or restricted-breed dogs. The court can now impose fines up to $23,000 and up to a six-month immediate prison sentence on the owner of a restricted-breed dog involved in an attack.
Following the dog attack, the victim reported the matter to the local council, which conducted an investigation. Our client was subsequently charged with offences relating to the dog attack. The Pit Bull Terrier was also seized by the council officers and held in the pound following the determination of the matter.
At Court:
Several discussions were held with our solicitor and the prosecutor regarding the matter. Our client had been a dog owner for 15 years without any incident. He had just moved into this property and tried to ensure the dog could not escape. He had also complied with all the requirements of having a restricted breed dog on his premises.
Our solicitor tried to persuade the prosecutor to recommend a diversion. However, the prosecutor did not agree and considered the matter too serious.
During case conferencing, our solicitor asked the council whether they would seek any destruction orders for the dog from the court. The council advised that they would not be asking the Magistrate to make such an order, but would potentially commence the process of having the dog declared as dangerous upon a finding of guilt being made.
The Outcome:
Our client was concerned about having his dog put down. Once the council confirmed they would not seek any orders for the dog’s destruction, the client instructed our solicitor to plead guilty to the charge.
The client entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to a non-conviction fine of $1500. The client was ordered to pay the council’s costs for impounding the dog and compensation for the other side’s veterinary expenses. The Magistrate did not make any orders regarding the destruction of the dog.
Following the matter’s conclusion, the council notified the client in writing of its intention to destroy the dog. When the council notifies an owner of this intention, the owner has the right to make written or oral submissions to the council by a specific date as to why they should not destroy the dog.
Our solicitor discussed the case with the council, as they had previously indicated they would not be seeking destruction of the dog. The client entered a guilty plea based on this assumption. Following lengthy discussions, the council reconsidered its position and instead forwarded the client an intention to declare the dog dangerous, which the client ultimately accepted. The dog was subsequently handed back to the client.
