Holland v Crisafulli

Lisa Jane Holland sought judicial review of a decision by a Brisbane City Council officer to declare her dog a dangerous dog under the Dog Registration and Control Ordinance 1984. The applicant argued that there was no evidence to support the declaration, as required by section 20(2)(h) of the Judicial Review Act 1991. The key issue was whether evidence that the dog had attacked and killed guinea pigs was sufficient to show it had a dangerous propensity. The applicant submitted that such evidence was insufficient, as it is in the nature of dogs to attack small animals. However, the court held that there was no logical distinction between a dog's propensity to pursue animals like sheep versus guinea pigs. The evidence showed the dog's propensity to attack small animals, which is relevant to determining dangerousness under the ordinance.

The court found that there was evidence from which the Council officer could be satisfied that the dog was dangerous. The applicant's argument that evidence of attacking guinea pigs was inadmissible was rejected. The ordinance's definition of "animal" is inclusive, and there is no reason to distinguish between types of four-legged animals when determining dangerousness. The court held that the applicant's dog exhibited a propensity to attack small animals, which supported the Council officer's declaration that it was dangerous. The merits of the decision could not be reviewed in this application.