Keatings and Town Of Victoria Park
[2008] WASAT 205
•5 SEPTEMBER 2008
KEATINGS and TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK [2008] WASAT 205
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2008] WASAT 205 | |
| DOG ACT 1976 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CC:168/2008 | 13 MAY 2008 AND 5 AUGUST 2008 | |
| Coram: | MR T CAREY (MEMBER) | 5/09/08 | |
| 16 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application successful | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAVID KEATINGS TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK |
Catchwords: | Administrative law Review of decision to seize and destroy dog Attacks on dogs before and after declaration as dangerous dog Steps taken by way of improved security and training Object of Dog Act provisions Correct and preferable decision |
Legislation: | Dog Act 1976 (WA), s 33E(1), s 33G, s 33G(1), s 33G(2)(d)(i), s 33G(4)(a), s 33G(6) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), Div 3, Pt 4, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 29(1), s 29(3) |
Case References: | Nil |
Orders | The Tribunal orders that:,1. The decision of the respondent to dismiss the applicant's objection under s 33G(2)(d)(i) of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) is set aside.,2. The respondent's proposal to cause the applicant's dog Jewels to be destroyed is set aside.,3. The dog Jewels will be returned to the applicant as soon as appropriate arrangements can be made.,4. The Tribunal's orders are subject to compliance with the following conditions:,a) For the first month following the return of Jewels, the applicant retain Jewels for no more than three days per week, with Jewels being returned to the Pampered Pooch at the applicant's cost for the remainder of those weeks. During this period, management of Jewels by the applicant is to be evaluated by Dr Jennens. Also during this period, the applicant is to continue to attend group training sessions and undertake any specific exercises as recommended for Jewels by Dr Jennens.,b) For the next succeeding five months, the applicant is to return Jewels to the Pampered Pooch at least twice weekly for day care at the applicant's cost.,c) A record of the training during the first month shall be kept and signed off by Dr Jennens and provided to the respondent as soon as possible after the end of the month.,d) The applicant shall provide the respondent in advance with notification of any change of location of Jewels in any case where Jewels is to be kept overnight at the new location.,e) At no time shall Jewels be permitted in the enclosed front verandah area of the applicant's home unless held on a leash by a person physically able to control her. |
Summary | The applicant sought review of a decision to seize his dog and propose that she be destroyed. The decision was made after the dog was declared a dangerous dog, based on a further attack.,The applicant, who has a bipolar affective disorder, is devoted to his dog, and has now taken significant measures designed to ensure that no more attacks occur. The measures include improving the boundary security of the applicant's property, which on the occasions of the attacks it had been able to breach, the dog undertaking a behavioural treatment program and the applicant undertaking training in dog handling skills.,The Tribunal acknowledged the concerns of the respondent regarding both the dog and the applicant's tardiness in taking appropriate steps in a timely fashion. However, it allowed the applicant some leeway given his medical condition. It determined that the steps which had now been taken by the applicant, and the conditions by which he had agreed to be bound on the return of dog, constituted a proper basis for such a return without compromising the public interest. It set aside the proposal that the dog be destroyed and ordered its return on the agreed conditions. |
JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL STREAM : COMMERCIAL & CIVIL ACT : DOG ACT 1976 (WA) CITATION : KEATINGS and TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK [2008] WASAT 205 MEMBER : MR T CAREY (MEMBER) HEARD : 13 MAY 2008 AND 5 AUGUST 2008 DELIVERED : 5 SEPTEMBER 2008 FILE NO/S : CC 168 of 2008 BETWEEN : DAVID KEATINGS
- Applicant
AND
TOWN OF VICTORIA PARK
Respondent
Catchwords:
Administrative law - Review of decision to seize and destroy dog - Attacks on dogs before and after declaration as dangerous dog - Steps taken by way of improved security and training - Object of Dog Act provisions - Correct and preferable decision
Legislation:
Dog Act 1976 (WA), s 33E(1), s 33G, s 33G(1), s 33G(2)(d)(i), s 33G(4)(a), s 33G(6)
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), Div 3, Pt 4, s 27(1), s 27(2), s 29(1), s 29(3)
(Page 2)
Result:
Application successful
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr C McIntosh
Respondent : Mr G Owen and Mr P Gillett
Solicitors:
Applicant : Tang Legal
Respondent : McLeods Barristers & Solicitors
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
(Page 3)
Summary of Tribunal's decision
1 The applicant sought review of a decision to seize his dog and propose that she be destroyed. The decision was made after the dog was declared a dangerous dog, based on a further attack.
2 The applicant, who has a bipolar affective disorder, is devoted to his dog, and has now taken significant measures designed to ensure that no more attacks occur. The measures include improving the boundary security of the applicant's property, which on the occasions of the attacks it had been able to breach, the dog undertaking a behavioural treatment program and the applicant undertaking training in dog handling skills.
3 The Tribunal acknowledged the concerns of the respondent regarding both the dog and the applicant's tardiness in taking appropriate steps in a timely fashion. However, it allowed the applicant some leeway given his medical condition. It determined that the steps which had now been taken by the applicant, and the conditions by which he had agreed to be bound on the return of dog, constituted a proper basis for such a return without compromising the public interest. It set aside the proposal that the dog be destroyed and ordered its return on the agreed conditions.
Background
4 The applicant, Mr Keatings, is the owner of a female Boxer cross named "Jewels". According to Mr Keatings, Jewels first came into his home in East Victoria Park in 2001 when it was about one year old, and after exhausting attempts to ascertain who she belonged to, decided "that she could stay with us for a while". Jewels has remained in the Keatings' house ever since.
5 The events leading to the seizure of Jewels and prospect of destruction of the dog in accordance with s 33G of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) (Dog Act) are substantially agreed. They are set out in the respondent's Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions as follows:
5th September 2003:
The Town's Ranger Services Section received a report of the dog Jewels attacking a man delivering pamphlets to a property at 59 Etwell Street, Victoria Park. The victim received torn clothing. As this was a first offence and the incident was minor no action was taken against the dogs (sic) owner Mr David Keatings.
(Page 4)
- 25 April 2006:
The Town's Ranger Services Section received a complaint that the dog Jewels had rushed off the property at 59 Etwell Street and attacked another dog by biting it around the throat causing puncture wounds. Infringement 12234 was issued to the owner for failure to register a dog. The Owner paid the complainants (sic) veterinary bills. No further action was taken as the complainant was satisfied with this outcome. Both dogs were not being held by a lead at the time of the offence.
23rd September 2007:
The dog Jewels attacked another dog which was being walked on a lead past the property at 59 Etwell Street where she was accommodated. The dog Jewels ran from the property and attacked the dog by biting it around the throat leaving puncture wounds which required veterinary attention. The Owner paid the associated veterinary costs in relation to injuries caused.
27th September 2007:
In view of the past history and the most recent attack, the dog Jewels was declared a Dangerous Dog by the Town under Section 33E of the Dog Act 1976.
1st November 2007:
The dog Jewels attacked a dog that was being walked past the property at 59 Etwell Street where she was accommodated. This attack resulted in injury to the other dog which was bitten around the throat and received puncture wounds which required veterinary attention to the amount of approximately $150.00.
Reasons given for dismissing the objection
6 In the respondent's letter to the applicant dated 6 February 2008, the following reasons, in slightly paraphrased form, were given for the decision to dismiss the objection:
1) Jewels had shown a continued tendency to attack without provocation and, given any further opportunity, the dog may attack again;
2) The nature of the attacks, as causing puncture wounds to the throats of other dogs requiring veterinary treatment on three occasions, was severe, it raises concerns that Jewels may attack another dog or person causing serious injuries;
(Page 5)
- 3) The applicant had shown no indication that he understood the seriousness of the attacks or the requirements of the Dog Act to effectively control Jewels;
4) Despite the dangerous dog declaration on 27 September 2007, the applicant failed to control his dog to ensure that no further attacks occurred; and
5) Jewels attacked another dog on 1 November 2007, 33 days after being declared a dangerous dog.
Statutory framework
7 The declaration of Jewels as a dangerous dog, by letter dated 27 September 2007, was made in accordance with s 33E(1) of the Dog Act. That subsection provides:
A dog may be declared to be a dangerous dog
(1) A local government, or on behalf of the local government an authorised person or person specifically authorised by the local government for the purposes of this section either generally or in a particular case, may, by a notice in writing given in accordance with section 33F, declare a dog to be a dangerous dog if, in the opinion of the local government or that person -
(a) the dog has caused injury or damage by an attack on, or chasing, a person, animal or vehicle;
(b) the dog has, repeatedly, shown a tendency -
(i) to attack, or chase, a person, animal or vehicle even though no injury has been caused by that behaviour; or
(ii) to threaten to attack;
or
(c) the behaviour of the dog meets other criteria prescribed for the purpose of this section.
(Page 6)
9 The seizure of Jewels on 28 November 2007 was authorised by s 33G(1) of the Dog Act. The full terms of s 33G are set out below:
Seizure and destruction
(1) Where an authorised person or a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an attack by a dangerous dog has occurred, whether or not a warrant has been applied for under section 29(5a), that authorised person or police officer may, if he has reasonable grounds to believe it is necessary to do so, enter onto or into any premises and there seize the dog and thereafter the dog may be detained under section 29(3).
(2) On the dog being so detained pursuant to subsection (1) the local government or an authorised person must give notice in writing, in addition to any notice required by section 29, to the owner of the dog -
(a) informing the owner of the seizure and of the place where the dog is detained;
(b) giving reasons for the seizure;
(c) stating that, whether or not the dog is claimed, the local government proposes to cause the dog to be destroyed, at a time specified not earlier, unless the owner otherwise consents, than 10 days after the giving of the notice; and
(d) specifying that the owner has a right under this Division, to be exercised within not more than 7 days after the giving of the notice, either -
(i) to lodge a written objection with the local government, with a subsequent right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision made by the local government on the objection; or
(ii) to apply directly to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review,
where, and as soon as, that is practicable.
(3) The local government shall cause a dog seized under this section to be detained until any objection which is received has been considered, the time for making an application to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review has passed, and if an application is made that application has been determined.
(Page 7)
- (4) Where an objection is lodged with a local government in accordance with subsection (2)(d)(i) the local government shall consider it and -
(a) if the local government dismisses the objection, the owner may, within 7 days after the giving of a notice by the local government as to the dismissal of the objection, apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision; or
(b) if the local government has not given notice to the owner stating that the objection has been considered, and setting out its determination on the objection, within 35 days after the giving under subsection (2) of the notice of the seizure of the dog, the owner may, within 42 days after the giving of that notice under subsection (2), apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the decision to which the owner objected.
(5) Where a local government gives notice of the dismissal of an objection under this section, that notice must set out the reason for the dismissal of the objection.
(6) Where -
(a) an objection lodged with a local government in accordance with subsection (2)(d)(i) is dismissed and -
(i) no application for review is made to the Local Court;
(ii) an application for review is made but the applicant discontinues the application; or
(iii) the State Administrative Tribunal makes an order dismissing the application for want of prosecution;
or
(b) an application is made under this section to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review and the State Administrative Tribunal affirms the proposal to cause the dog to be destroyed,
an authorised person, or a person specifically authorised by the State Administrative Tribunal, may destroy the dog concerned.
10 By letter dated 3 December 2007, the applicant and his wife lodged a written objection with the respondent in accordance with s 33G(2)(d)(i).
(Page 8)
- The objection was considered by the Council of the respondent at its meeting on 5 February 2008 when the objection was dismissed. By letter dated 6 February 2008, the respondent informed the applicant of the dismissal of the objection, reasons for the dismissal and of the applicant's right to apply to the Tribunal for review of the decision (in accordance with s 33G(4)(a) of the Dog Act). On 12 February 2008, the applicant filed the application for review.
11 The application is within the review jurisdiction of the Tribunal which is the subject of Div 3 of Pt 4 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act). Relevantly, for present purposes, the purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review (s 27(2) of the SAT Act), the Tribunal has functions and discretions corresponding to those exercisable by the decisionmaker in making the decision under review (s 29(1) of the SAT Act), and the Tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate, including to affirm the decision, vary the decision, or set it aside and substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decisionmaker for reconsideration (s 29(3) of the SAT Act).
12 If the Tribunal affirms the proposal to cause the dog to be destroyed, an authorised person, or a person specifically authorised by the Tribunal, may destroy the dog concerned: s 33G(6), Dog Act.
Issues
13 The primary issue in this application is whether the proposal of the respondent to cause the dog Jewels to be destroyed should be affirmed.
14 Two broad subsidiary issues arise on the parties' respective cases before the Tribunal:
a) The validity of the reasons of the respondent for dismissing the applicant's objection as a sufficient basis to affirm the proposal;
b) The effect of steps taken or instituted by the applicant on the primary issue. Those steps fall into the following categories:
• improving the boundary security at the applicant's home;
• training Jewels; and
- • training the applicant in dog handling skills.
Respondent's reasons for taking action
15 It goes without saying, and the applicant does not refute, that a situation where a dog attacks other dogs or people repeatedly is not one which should be allowed to continue. The relevant parts of the statutory scheme under the Dog Act reproduced above make this clear. The statutory scheme provides for a twotiered approach to problem dogs. At the first tier, a dog may be declared a dangerous dog, amongst other circumstances, in the event that it attacks another animal or person so as to cause injury. The consequences of such a declaration include that the dog be muzzled in public places and subject to any other control requirements imposed in individual cases.
16 The second tier is triggered where a dog declared dangerous perpetrates an attack. In that event, the local government authority may seize and detain the dog and, subject to the owner's review rights, arrange for its destruction.
17 I have reproduced the reasons given by the respondent to dismiss the applicant's objection to the seizure and proposal to destroy Jewels as they contain the clearest expression of the respondent's justification for the decision which has been made. In addition, they highlight the considerations which one would expect to bear upon the primary issue. This applies particularly to the recidivist nature of the attacks by Jewels, the consequences of the attacks, any lack of appreciation on the part of the owner regarding the attacks, and the fact that an attack occurred not long after the making of the dangerous dog declaration. All these matters, when considered cumulatively, might be regarded as constituting reasonable grounds upon which a local government authority might have formed the belief that seizure of the dog was necessary within the terms of s 33G of the Dog Act.
18 The applicant, while admitting the four incidents upon which the respondent relies, characterised each of the incidents as having arisen in circumstances where Jewels was on her owner's property, saw another dog or person, and was in a position to escape because of inadequate boundary security. During the time that Jewels has been with the applicant, no complaint has been made of any attack involving Jewels when taken on a leash for a walk. The applicant says that, by reason of improvements to the security measures at the applicant's home, the further opportunity to which the first of the respondent's reasons refers will not arise.
(Page 10)
19 Although the applicant submitted that none of the four incidents caused permanent harm to any dog or person, and that the relatively small vet bills (paid by the applicant) indicate the minor nature of the injuries suffered, I would merely repeat that the continued prospect of attacks by an individual dog should not be allowed to continue, and observe that the mechanisms of the Dog Act are there to be used.
20 Perhaps the most striking difference in the respective parties' submissions concerns the level of understanding by the applicant of his responsibilities as a dog owner and the extent to which improvements effected to the boundary security of the applicant's property are relevant to the primary issue. These are matters which fall to be discussed under the next subsidiary issue.
Steps taken or instituted by the applicant
21 It is clear that the respondent has been highly critical of the applicant for failing to properly manage Jewels, resulting in the attacks on a man and three dogs and injuries to the dogs. Clearly (and this is admitted by the applicant) inadequacies in relation to the security of the applicant's property permitted each of the attacks to occur. Counsel for the respondent suggested that, to the extent that improvements in security have been made, these have been reactionary responses, after the damage had been done. The respondent also relied upon the fact that the applicant was prosecuted and fined in excess of $1,000 in respect of the offence constituted by the attack by Jewels on 23 September 2007, which did not have the effect of preventing the further attack on 1 November 2007 (in respect of which the applicant was again prosecuted and fined a similar amount).
22 Being a hearing de novo, the review being undertaken by the Tribunal is not confined to matters that were before the decisionmaker but may involve the consideration of new material: s 27(1), SAT Act. The purpose of the review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review: s 27(2), SAT Act.
23 The applicant has provided evidence of a concerted effort on his part to resolve any past weaknesses in the security of the boundary of his residence which Jewels has, in the past, availed herself of. The improvements were the subject of evidence of the applicant himself and also of Dr Garth Jennens, an animal behaviourist who gave expert evidence at the hearing. The main area of contention was the front verandah of the house, through which Jewels escaped on three of the four occasions when attacks occurred. The applicant has now installed pool fencing at the
(Page 11)
- front of the property, including a selfclosing gate and, on the other side of the front verandah, a selfclosing security front door. Dr Jennens, who has effectively managed the enhancements to the boundary security, has confirmed his satisfaction that the current perimeter fences and gates are sufficient to contain Jewels if she is returned to the applicant. I am satisfied that these measures have reduced the chance that Jewels will escape to investigate and attack a dog it detects walking in front of the house to negligible levels.
24 Apart from the improved security, the applicant has invested significant time and money in training programs for both Jewels and himself. These programs were administered by Dr Jennens. The decision to undertake the treatment programs was made on the basis of Dr Jennens' recommendation, which he formed upon his initial examination of Jewels at the dog pound in which the dog was being detained subsequent to the seizure by the respondent, and the circumstances of the attacks. For the purposes of the training programs, Jewels was transferred to a dedicated dog training complex, the Pampered Pooch, where she remains. Mr Keatings attended the same premises for his skills training.
25 In total, Dr Jennens provided three written reports and gave oral evidence on both days of the hearing on 13 May 2008 and 5 August 2008. In Dr Jennens' second report dated 9 June 2008, the expert witness explained the principles behind, and details of, the training program undertaken at the Pampered Pooch. As the report made clear, the typical scenario in which Jewels became nervous, and would bark and growl on settling into her new environment, was when she was exposed to other dogs. She showed no aggression towards Dr Jennens nor other humans who were handling her. According to this report:
The focus over the past four weeks has been on assessing Jewels' temperament in a number of situations in order to provide a recommendation to the tribunal as to whether a treatment program is worthwhile pursuing. Jewels progress to date has been pleasing and in this regard I would recommend that her rehabilitation continue with the intention that she be eventually returned to Mr Keatings. However:
1. The modifications to Mr Keatings' property that I have outlined above would need to be completed prior to Jewels' return to 59 Etwell Street, East Victoria Park.
2. Jewels would need to be kept at the Pampered Pooch for another four weeks from the 16th June so that intensive socialisation periods with other dogs can be carried out on a daily basis.
(Page 12)
- 3. Mr Keatings must continue to attended (sic) regular training sessions at the Pampered Pooch, and at another nominated venue closer to Mr Keatings' home for a period of six months after Jewels is released into his care.
4. Mr Keatings must carry out the home management program, permit regular assessment, by myself, and agree to follow any instructions arising from these assessments.
5. There must be a provision in any new order to ensure Mr Keatings assumes all responsibility for Jewels once she is returned to his care.
26 In light of the recommendations of Dr Jennens just referred to, the resumption of the hearing, then scheduled for 16 June 2008, was postponed by consent until 22 July 2008 (which was adjourned again for other reasons until 5 August 2008). This allowed the Tribunal the benefit of a supplementary report by Dr Jennens regarding the training undertaken by both Jewels and Mr Keatings during the intervening period, which contributed to a firming up of Dr Jennens' opinion.
27 In his third report dated 10 July 2008, Dr Jennens:
• confirmed that the applicant had demonstrated he is able to control Jewels on a lead near other dogs, and Jewels had shown that she does not lunge out at other dogs approaching or next to her;
• confirmed that Jewels had not shown any aggression to staff members, and had become considerably more confident with people;
• opined that Jewels' separation anxiety, a condition that may cause a dog to escape from its property, was far less serious than first thought;
• stated that Jewels is able to be put close to other dogs, but as soon as they quickly move into her space or bark at her, she reacts defensively. On this basis it was not possible to integrate Jewels with other dogs off lead. Her progress to date in this regard, however, was as much as could be expected.
• recommended that should Jewels be released into the applicant's care permanently, she be returned to the Pampered Pooch approximately twice weekly for day care for a period of at least six months;
- • recommended that he undertake two sessions with Mr Keatings and Jewels at the applicant's home to ensure that he fully understands the requirements of managing her at that location;
• was satisfied with both Mr Keatings' and Jewels' progress to date. Although daily interactions with other dogs at the Pampered Pooch would be the ideal situation, the regular day care sessions already referred to would be a viable substitute to boarding and more cost effective for the applicant;
• recommended that Jewels be returned to the applicant, initially for two to three days per week for the first month, during which the applicant's management of Jewels at his home can be properly evaluated and Mr Keatings would continue to attend group training sessions and undertake any specific exercises Dr Jennens felt necessary to modify Jewels' behaviour;
• undertook to provide a final report at the end of the month's trial.
My consideration
28 The question for the Tribunal is whether the measures taken by the applicant are sufficient to protect the public interest in the light of the history of attacks by Jewels, including the attack on 1 November 2007 after Jewels had been declared a dangerous dog.
29 One aspect of the case not yet mentioned concerns the mental wellbeing of the applicant. A medical report was tendered, indicating that Mr Keatings suffers from bipolar affective disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, that in the past his psychiatric health has been poor and he has required intensive psychiatric care (inpatient and outpatient) at times. According to the report, currently Mr Keatings' symptoms are well controlled but he is vulnerable to stress.
30 Mr Keatings confirmed his medical condition and indicated that his medicine keeps him calm and in control. Mr Keatings also gave evidence regarding his strong attachment to Jewels and the benefits to his wellbeing of having
(Page 14)
- Jewels around. His general practitioner reported that the impounding of Jewels had caused the applicant emotional distress and the return of the dog would be very beneficial to him.
31 It is quite apparent, from his evidence and having assessed Mr Keatings' demeanour in the witness box, that he is devoted to Jewels. Despite the undoubted significant cost attaching to the security enhancements, kennelling and training of his dog, the applicant has, at least in recent times, displayed every willingness to pay for whatever was considered necessary to permit the return of Jewels to him. Similarly, he has agreed to undertake any and all of Dr Jennens' recommendations for the future, as he has done to date. His family is supportive of him in this regard.
32 Although I appreciate the concerns raised on behalf of the respondent concerning a certain tardiness on behalf of the applicant to put in place the security enhancements which now exist, the fact is that those enhancements have now been made. Further, I take the applicant's psychiatric condition into account in allowing Mr Keatings some leeway in terms of the delay in appreciating the seriousness of the danger represented by his dog's propensity to lash out at dogs in the vicinity and the prospect of the front door of the applicant's house being left open. Now, clearly having been brought to task by way of both his criminal prosecutions and the seizure, with prospect of destruction, of Jewels, in my view the applicant has done everything physically possible to resolve the situation.
33 The object of the relevant sections of the Dog Act is not to punish, but rather to promote the safekeeping of the dog population in the state. On the basis of Dr Jennens' expert opinion, it can now reasonably be expected that that object will be achieved by permitting the return of Jewels to the applicant, on the basis of a number of conditions proposed by the respondent and agreed to without hesitation by the applicant, including continued training in accordance with Dr Jennens' recommendations. In my view, this result represents the correct and preferable position as permitting Mr Keatings to resume his important relationship with Jewels, whilst catering for the public interest in safeguarding the rights of people and their pets to freely go about their business.
Orders
34 The Tribunal orders that:
(Page 15)
- 1. The decision of the respondent to dismiss the applicant's objection under s 33G(2)(d)(i) of the Dog Act 1976 (WA) is set aside.
2. The respondent's proposal to cause the applicant's dog Jewels to be destroyed is set aside.
3. The dog Jewels will be returned to the applicant as soon as appropriate arrangements can be made.
4. The Tribunal's orders are subject to compliance with the following conditions:
a) For the first month following the return of Jewels, the applicant retain Jewels for no more than three days per week, with Jewels being returned to the Pampered Pooch at the applicant's cost for the remainder of those weeks. During this period, management of Jewels by the applicant is to be evaluated by Dr Jennens. Also during this period, the applicant is to continue to attend group training sessions and undertake any specific exercises as recommended for Jewels by Dr Jennens.
b) For the next succeeding five months, the applicant is to return Jewels to the Pampered Pooch at least twice weekly for day care at the applicant's cost.
c) A record of the training during the first month shall be kept and signed off by Dr Jennens and provided to the respondent as soon as possible after the end of the month.
d) The applicant shall provide the respondent in advance with notification of any change of location of Jewels in any case where Jewels is to be kept overnight at the new location.
e) At no time shall Jewels be permitted in the enclosed front verandah area of the applicant's home unless held on a leash by a person physically able to control her.
(Page 16)
I certify that this and the preceding [34] paragraphs comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.
___________________________________
MR T CAREY, MEMBER
0
2