A v Auckland Council - [2025] NZHC 2382

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT. SEE PARAGRAPH [99].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-000096

[2025] NZHC 2382

BETWEEN
A

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Defendant

Hearing: 4 August 2025

Appearances:

S M Kilian and K Bergh for the Appellant

B V Magill and T C Faumuina-Tuuga for the Respondent

Judgment:

21 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 21 August 2025 at 4 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………………………..

Solicitors:
Kilian & Associates, Auckland Auckland Council, Auckland

A v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2025] NZHC 2382 [21 August 2025]

[1] Ms A appeals the ruling of Judge E P Paul given in the District Court at North Shore on 22 November 2024 in which Judge Paul dismissed Ms A’s application for a discharge without conviction after she had pleaded guilty to two charges under the Dog Control Act 1996.1 The Judge also made an order for the destruction of Ms A’s dog, Boy.

[2]The charges were:

(a)Failing to comply with s 33E(1)(a) of the Dog Control Act, under which an owner of a menacing dog must not allow the dog to be at large or in any public place without being muzzled;2 and

(b)Owning a dog that attacks a domestic animal.3

What happened?

[3] On 9 January 2023, Boy, a male English Bull Terrier, was classified as menacing under s 33A of the Dog Control Act after attacking a domestic cat. Under s 33E of the Dog Control Act, Ms A, as Boy’s owner, was required not to allow the dog to be in a public place without being muzzled.

[4] According to the summary of facts that was the basis of Ms A’s guilty pleas, at about 9.30 am on 9 September 2023, Ms A and Boy were in Ngataringa Park in Devonport. Ngataringa Park is an on-leash, all year-round public park. Boy was off- leash and unmuzzled.

[5] The complainant and her husband and their dog Louis, a Shih-Tzu, were also in the park. Louis was also off-leash and walking about a metre in front of the complainant and her husband. When Ms A was about 20 metres away from the complainant, she called out and said, “Don’t worry, my dog is friendly”.

1      Auckland Council v A [2024] NZDC 28142 [the Ruling].
2      Dog Control Act 1996, s 33EC. Maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $3,000. Dog may be seized and disposed of under the Dog Control Act.
3      Dog Control Act, s 57. Maximum penalty of a fine not exceeding $3,000. Dog may also be destroyed.

The complainant, who had not seen Boy at that stage, called back, “That’s all good. Our dog is also friendly with other dogs”.

[6] The complainant saw Boy, in a pounce position, staring at Louis. When the defendant and the complainant’s husband were about five metres apart, Boy ran at Louis,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A v Auckland Council

Details

AGLC: A v Auckland Council [2025] NZHC 2382
Case: [2025] NZHC 2382
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms A appealed against a ruling of Judge Paul, which dismissed her application for a discharge without conviction and ordered the destruction of her dog, Boy. Ms A pleaded guilty to two charges under the Dog Control Act 1996. The charges related to Boy attacking a domestic animal and Ms A allowing Boy to be at large and unmuzzled in a public place, contrary to statutory requirements for a menacing dog. Ms A appealed against the conviction and sentence. Ms A argued that the consequences of conviction were out of all proportion to the gravity of the offence, in light of her mental health issues and the effect on her of destroying Boy. The court considered several issues, including whether Ms A should be granted leave to extend the time for filing the appeal, whether leave should be granted to adduce fresh evidence, whether the notice of abandonment of appeal should be set aside, whether there was merit in Ms A's appeal, and whether Ms A should be granted a discharge without conviction. The court found leave was not required to extend time for filing the appeal, leave was granted to adduce fresh evidence, the notice of abandonment of appeal was not set aside, the appeal was dismissed, and the dog destruction order made in the District Court was confirmed. The court also suppressed Ms A's name and anonymised the name of her dog.

Orders