Automatic language translation
Our website uses an automatic service to translate our content into different languages. These translations should be used as a guide only. See our Accessibility page for further information.
Case Number: 2020/97395
Findings Date: 14 June 2024
Magistrate: Carmel Forbes
CORONIAL LAW | coronial law
| Recommendations to | Response |
|---|---|
| Chief Executive Officer Shoalhaven City Council | Awaiting |
| Office of Local Government | Awaiting |
1. The Council review its procedures, and the training provided to rangers, for responding to reports or suspected cases of dogs leaving their yard and or being involved in an attack, to ensure that rangers whenever reasonably able to:
a. Inspect a property’s fencing to independently evaluate its adequacy, with specific regard given to whether the power to seize the dog(s) is reasonably enlivened (Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW) (CA Act), ss 18 and 36) and if so, whether that power should be exercised (even on a temporary basis pending improvements being made to the property).
b. Inspect any changes made to the yard’s fencing to independently evaluate improvements made to ensure that a dog(s) cannot leave the yard unaccompanied.
c. Inquire with nearby residents to check if persons living near to the dog(s) report anything relevantly of concern regarding the dog(s) and or dog owner(s).
d. Consider the known history of compliance with the regulatory regime under the CA Act and the Companion Animal Act Regulation 2008 (NSW) (Regulation) and what that may indicate as to the likelihood an owner will implement measures to adequately secure his or her dog(s) and prevent future attacks.
e. Ensure a specific record is made in the Council’s electronic records for a particular owner – which is readily available to be searched by council rangers and officers by reference to that person’s name – of known or suspected instances of the owner having provided false, incorrect or misleading information to council rangers or officers about dogs owned by the person or under their control.
2. The Council develop guidelines and training regarding what matters might properly inform a ranger’s evaluation of an owner’s “competency” to effectively control and secure a dog(s) for the purposes of the CA Act.
3. To the extent not already done, the Office of Local Government (OLG) develop a standardised training package for council rangers, employed with councils in New South Wales, that are expected to respond to reports or suspected cases of dog escapes and/or attacks on persons or other dogs. This would extend to training and guiding rangers in:
a. The assessment of a dog’s risk of future attack, including by reference to the known or suspected breed or type, the number and type of dogs at a premises, and any queries that may relate to this assessment (potentially involving scenario training using Ms Holland’s case as an example).
b. The assessment of a dog owners’ competence to adequately secure and control a dog(s) under their control.
c. The preconditions, and factors relevant to exercising, statutory powers of seizure and to issue notices to declare under the CA Act.
4. The OLG examine the possibility of the enactment of a statutory limitation on the number of dogs, of the same breed or mixed breed or type (e.g. Staffordshire Bull Terriers), that can ordinarily reside at a specific premises or be under the control of owners living or accessing those premises.
5. The OLG examine the appropriateness of the statutory thresholds and framing of the provisions in the CA Act for the issuance of notices to declare a menacing or dangerous dog. This extends to:
a. Ensuring greater clarity as to whether the dangerous dog threshold requires, in the case of an attack on a person, the occasioning of serious injury. (s 33 and s 33 A CA Act).
b. Examining the sufficiency of the enclosure and control obligations enlivened upon a dog being declared menacing.
6. The OLG review the adequacy of the statutory provisions in the CA Act and the Regulation concerning:
a. The maximum penalty for non-compliance with registration and identification/ microchipping requirements (including in the case of repeated non-compliance).
b. The maximum penalties for an owner of a dog who does not take all reasonable precautions to prevent a dog escaping the property on which it is being kept.
c. The maximum penalties for an offence of a dog rushing, attacking, biting, harassing, or chasing any person or animal when the dog is not a dangerous, menacing, or restricted dog (CA Act, s 16), including consideration of introducing an increased maximum penalty in cases where a person suffers a serious injury or death as a result of a dog rushing, attacking or biting the person.
d. The maximum period of disqualification in the event of a contravention of s 16, particularly in cases that involve serious injury or death.
e. the desirability of including in the CA Act an additional stand-alone offence of a dog attack causing serious harm or death to a person.
7. The OLG, in consultation with local government councils in New South Wales, consider implementing a public awareness campaign emphasising the dangers posed by specific breeds and types of dogs.
16 Sep 2024