Baker v Whakatane District Council - [2021] NZCA 495

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA90/2021
[2021] NZCA 495

BETWEEN	JOSEPH EDWARD BAKER Applicant
AND	WHAKATANE DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent

Court:	Goddard, Thomas and Wylie JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person L M Ebbers for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	29 September 2021 at 11.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is declined.
BThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Background

Mr Baker is the owner of two dogs: a bull terrier named Ice, and a bull terrier named Khaos. On 30 November 2019 these dogs got out of the property where Mr Baker and his father live, and attacked another dog.

District Court decision

Mr Baker was convicted in the District Court on two charges under s 57(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996.[1] Judge MacDonald ordered that Mr Baker pay the veterinarian fees for the injured dog of $344.40 with Court costs of $130.00 on each charge. Mr Baker was also ordered to make an emotional harm reparation payment of $250.00 to the owner of the dog that was attacked, and to pay the sum of $500.00 toward the costs of prosecution.[2]
[1]Whakatane District Council v Baker [2020] NZDC 24879.
[2]Whakatane District Council v Baker [2020] NZDC 24882 at [12]–[14].
Section 57(3) of the Dog Control Act required the District Court Judge to make an order for the destruction of the dogs unless he was satisfied that “the circumstances of the offence were exceptional and do not warrant destruction of the [dogs]”. The Judge was not satisfied that there were any exceptional circumstances for the purposes of s 57(3). The Judge made orders for destruction of both dogs.[3]

High Court appeal

[3]At [15].

Mr Baker appealed to the High Court.[4]
[4]Baker v Whakatane District Council [2021] NZHC 66.
Mr Baker filed a number of documents in the High Court which Venning J described as “convoluted, verbose, and in a number of instances, incomprehensible”.[5] However the Judge carefully reviewed the notes of evidence and all the materials filed by Mr Baker. He was satisfied that the charges under s 57(2) of the Dog Control Act were established beyond reasonable doubt.[6] He was also satisfied that there were no exceptional circumstances that would justify declining to make an order for the destruction of the dogs under s 57(3).[7]
[5]At [11].
[6]At [16].
[7]At [29].
The appeal was therefore dismissed. The orders for destruction of the two dogs, and the monetary penalties imposed on Mr Baker, were confirmed.[8]

Application for leave to appeal to this Court

[8]At [30]–[31].

Mr Baker filed a notice in this Court. It is not easy to follow. The notice names as respondents three employees of the Whakatane District Council. The notice says it relates to a claim of “trespass by way of debt, harm, extortion, blackmail, unlawful detainment and robbery”. The notice “requires” that all orders made against the property of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Baker v Whakatane District Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] NZCA 495
Decision Date: 29 September 2021 at 11.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Edward Baker applied to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against the orders of the High Court which had dismissed his appeal against the decision of the District Court that he had violated the Dog Control Act 1996 and had ordered that his dogs be destroyed. The Court of Appeal found that Mr Baker's application was frivolous and unsustainable, and did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal under s 237 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The Court found that there was no matter of general or public importance raised by the appeal and no miscarriage of justice. The Court found that Mr Baker's claims were baseless and without merit, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. There was no order as to costs. The Court found that while Mr Baker's application was frivolous and vexatious, the Whakatane District Council's opposition to the application was brief and did not require engagement with the detail of Mr Baker's arguments. Therefore, no costs were awarded.

Orders