Slater v Police - [2015] NZHC 707

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

CRI-2014-463-000088 [2015] NZHC 707

BETWEEN
MELISSA LEIGH SLATER

Appellant

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing: 24 March 2015

Appearances:

B Meyer for the Appellant
A Pollett for the Respondent

Judgment:

15 April 2015

JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 15 April 2015 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:
B Meyer, Barrister, Auckland
A Pollett, Crown Solicitor, Tauranga

SLATER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2015] NZHC 707 [15 April 2015]

[1] Three dogs that were in the care of the appellant, Melissa Slater, attacked a Postie while she was delivering mail in Edgecumbe. The dog that took the lead in the attack (a 3 year old Kelpie/Thai Ridgeback named Ice) was destroyed shortly afterwards.

[2] Subsequently, Ms Slater pleaded guilty to one charge under s 58 and two charges under s 57A of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act). She sought to be discharged without conviction but that was declined by Judge Ingram, who ordered that she pay $1,000 emotional harm reparation and complete 60 hours community work (concurrently) on each charge. The learned District Court Judge also ordered the destruction of the two surviving dogs (an 11 year old Kelpie named Mika and
Echo, a 4 year old Kelpie).1

[3] Ms Slater now appeals the dog destruction orders.

Facts

[4] Ms Slater is 23 years old. On 20 June 2014 she had three dogs in her yard. One (Ice) belonged to her and the others belonged to extended family members. The yard was normally secured but on the morning in question the gate had accidentally been left open.

[5] At about 11am, the victim, a 59 year old New Zealand Post employee, was walking past Ms Slater’s property. The dogs came out from the yard and attacked her. Ice bit her leg and she fell to the ground. Whilst on the ground, she was surrounded by the dogs. In her victim impact statement she says she was then bitten by Ice and another dog simultaneously. When she screamed, a number of persons nearby came to help her.

[6] The victim was taken to hospital. She spent four hours in the emergency ward, receiving care for numerous bite wounds and an abrasion to the right side of her forehead. In the next two weeks she suffered from pain and there was infection
in one of the wounds. There is a graphic victim impact statement and photographs

1 Police v Slater DC Whakatane CRI-2014-087-1197, 5 November 2014.

on the Court file. The attack has, understandably, had traumatising effects that are likely to be long-lasting.

[7] The Dog Control staff who arrived at the scene soon after the attack obtained written authority from Ms Slater for the destruction of Ice, who had never been registered. As I have said, Ice is accepted to have been the instigator, and main perpetrator, of the attack.

[8] Mika and Echo are, and…

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 Slater v Police 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: [2015] NZHC 707
Decision Date: 15 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Melissa Slater appeals against the District Court's order that her two dogs, Echo and Mika, be destroyed following an attack on a postal worker. The dogs had attacked the postal worker while she was delivering mail, resulting in serious injuries to the victim. Slater pleaded guilty to charges under the Dog Control Act 1996. The District Court ordered the destruction of the two surviving dogs, in addition to emotional harm reparation and community service. Slater's appeal focuses on the destruction orders for Echo and Mika.

The central legal issues are whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider relevant factors in deciding whether the destruction orders were appropriate. The relevant law includes sections 57, 57A, and 58 of the Dog Control Act 1996, which address dogs attacking, rushing, and causing serious injury, respectively. The court must consider the quality and severity of the offending, the consequences, and the ongoing dangerousness of the dog when exercising discretion under section 57A.

The High Court found that the District Court judge did not adequately consider relevant factors in ordering the destruction of Echo and Mika. The court accepted that the dogs were acting in a pack but noted that the main perpetrator was Ice, who had already been destroyed. The court also found that it was not clear what physical harm resulted specifically from Mika and Echo's involvement, and that there were other avenues available to protect the public, such as designating the dogs as "menacing" or "dangerous." Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the destruction orders were quashed.

The final orders are that the appeal is allowed and the orders that the dogs Echo and Mika be destroyed are quashed accordingly.

Orders