Easthope v Auckland Council - [2017] NZHC 3142

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2017-404-346

[2017] NZHC 3142

BETWEEN
TERRENCE EASTHOPE

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Respondent

Hearing: 12 December 2017

Counsel:

J B Samuel for appellant

A R Govind for respondent

Judgment:

14 December 2017

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2017 at 4:30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: A R Govind, Auckland Council, Auckland
J B Samuel, Jennifer G Connell & Associates, Auckland

EASTHOPE v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 3142 [14 December 2017]

Introduction

[1] Terrence Easthope’s dog, Buddy, attacked a toy poodle cross dog called Louie. Louie was seriously injured. Although strenuous efforts were made to save him, he ultimately had to be put down due to post-surgical complications.

[2] Mr Easthope pleaded guilty to a charge under s 57(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (“Act”) of being the owner of a dog that attacked another domestic animal. Judge A M Manuel ordered that Buddy be destroyed. In addition, she fined Mr Easthope $250 and ordered that he pay veterinarian costs of $5,000.

[3] Mr Easthope appeals against the order for destruction of the dog. He argues that the circumstances relating to Buddy’s attack were exceptional and that the order that he be destroyed was not warranted.

Facts

[4]Judge Manuel summarised the facts as follows:

[5] … The defendant’s dog is a tan coloured male Labrador-cross who is six years old. On 1 January 2017 the complainant was feeding rabbits at a property in Mount Eden. She had a dog with her named Louis, a toy poodle cross. As she left the property she saw the defendant’s dog rushing towards her and Louis. The defendant’s dog attacked Louis, biting him on his neck and front right leg. The defendant’s dog picked Louis up and shook him from side to side. The complainant tried to pull Louis free, but to no avail. The defendant came over to assist. He finally managed to get his dog off Louis and contain his dog in his own property. The complainant took Louis to the Animal Emergency Centre for treatment. He had suffered serious injuries and required surgery. Unfortunately, there were complications post-surgery and on 23 January 2017 Louis was put down.

Applicable law

[5]Section 57 of the Act relevantly provides:

57 Dogs attacking persons or animals

(1)A person may, for the purpose of stopping an attack, seize or destroy a dog if—

(a)the person is attacked by the dog; or

(b)the person witnesses the dog attacking any other person, or any stock, poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife.

(2)The owner of a dog that makes an attack described in subsection (1) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding
$3,000 in addition to any liability that he or she may incur for any damage caused by the attack.

(3)If, in any proceedings under subsection (2), the court is satisfied…

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 Easthope v Auckland 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: [2017] NZHC 3142
Decision Date: 14 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Easthope v Auckland Council revolves around the attack by Mr Easthope's dog, Buddy, on a toy poodle cross named Louie, resulting in Louie's death. Mr Easthope was charged under the Dog Control Act 1996 for being the owner of a dog that attacked another domestic animal, and Buddy was ordered to be destroyed. Mr Easthope appeals against this order, arguing that the circumstances of the attack were exceptional and that destruction of Buddy was not warranted.

The legal issues before the court were whether the circumstances of the offence were exceptional and, if not, whether the dog's destruction was warranted. The court considered the factors relevant to determining whether the circumstances of the offence were exceptional, such as the nature of the attack, the owner's history, and the steps taken to prevent such an attack. The court also examined whether, in the exceptional case, destruction of the dog was not warranted.

The court found that the circumstances of the offence were not exceptional. The attack occurred when Buddy escaped through an open gate, which was left open by Mr Easthope's cousin, Tania. While Buddy was neutered, registered, and microchipped, and had not previously attacked, the court held that the fact that a regular visitor left the gate open did not constitute exceptional circumstances. The court concluded that the circumstances were not unique or special and did not warrant a deviation from the statutory requirement for the dog's destruction. The court dismissed Mr Easthope's appeal.

The court also addressed the issue of the compensation order, clarifying that the fine and the compensation order were separate issues, and the Judge did not err in imposing both. The appeal was dismissed, and the order for the destruction of Buddy was upheld.

Orders