Craig v Brisbane City Council

CITATION:

Craig & Anor v Brisbane City Council [2017] QCAT 40

PARTIES:

Tanya Craig
Ross Craig
(Applicants)

v

Brisbane City Council

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR016-16

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

23 August 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member McLean Williams

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.    Application for review dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

Dangerous dog declaration pursuant to s 94 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) – circumstances of actual attack on a person

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 3, s 59, s 60, s 61, s 62, s 70, s 89, s 94, s 97, s 98, Schedule 1
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 20, s 24

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Tanya Craig and Ross Craig, in person.

RESPONDENT:

Ms Nilusha Rajapahse
Brisbane City Legal Practice, Brisbane City Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. On 19 January 2016 Mrs Tanya Craig filed an Application to Review a Decision, seeking a review of a decision by the Brisbane City Council (‘the Respondent’) by which her husband’s dog, a male Irish Wolfhound named Panzer, was declared to be dangerous. Because Mr Ross Craig is the registered owner of Panzer, he was subsequently joined as a co-applicant in these proceedings, by an order of the Tribunal.

2. The Respondent made the decision now under review on 20 October 2015, pursuant to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the Animal Management Act’). In a letter sent to Mr Craig on that date the Brisbane City Council advised that Panzer was to be declared dangerous after an incident on 24 September 2015 in which Panzer had nipped a member of the public, whilst off-leash, in the Boorabbin Picnic Area.

3. Chapter 8 Part 1 of the Animal Management Act provides that the decision may be internally reviewed. Mr and Mrs Craig availed themselves of the opportunity for an internal review, filing same with the Brisbane City Council on 4 November 2015.

4. On 26 November 2015 Mr Ashley Booth, Brisbane City Safety Manager conducted an internal review of the original decision to declare Panzer to be dangerous, pursuant to s 186 of the Animal Management Act. Mr Booth’s internal review decision was to affirm the original decision.

5. Section 188 of the Animal Management Act provides that decisions of this type may be externally reviewed, by QCAT.  Accordingly, the original decision (as was subsequently affirmed by Mr Booth during the internal review), now becomes - in the language of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (‘the QCAT Act’) - a “reviewable decision”, pursuant to Chapter 2 Division 3 of the QCAT Act. The external review is conducted by means of a fresh hearing on the merits. QCAT now ‘stands in the shoes’ of the original decision-maker.[1] All of the evidence available to the original decision maker, as well as any fresh evidence, may be considered by QCAT.

   [1]QCAT Act, s 20(2).

Factual…