Tuporo v Auckland Council - [2025] NZHC 3179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2025-404-353

[2025] NZHC 3179

BETWEEN
LAYLA TUPORO

Appellant

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL

Respondent

Hearing: 20 October 2025

Appearances:

A Kala for the Appellant

B Magill for the Respondent

Judgment:

23 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 October 2025 at 3 pm

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

TUPORO v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2025] NZHC 3179 [23 October 2025]

Introduction

[1] Ms Tuporo was convicted and sentenced in the Auckland District Court on one charge of owning a dog that attacked a person.1 She did not appear in court and the matter proceeded by way of formal proof.2

[2] She was sentenced to a $650 fine; reparation for medical costs; emotional harm to the victim of $500; and Court costs of $226. The Court also ordered destruction of Ms Tuporo’s dog pursuant to s 57(3) of the Dog Control Act 1996.

[3] Ms Tuporo appeals against the destruction order. She also seeks leave to appeal against the conviction (filed 14 days out of time) and leave to adduce fresh evidence in the form of an affidavit. She says she attended twice at the Auckland District Court but was advised on both occasions that her matter had not been scheduled for hearing that day. She also says that she has a total absence of fault defence available to her but, because of administrative error, she was denied the opportunity to put this before the District Court.

The offending

[4] Ms Tuporo is the registered owner of a male, tan and white Pitbull cross, named “Tupe”.

[5] At 9.40 am on 22 October 2024, Constable Asomua-Goodman arrived at a residential apartment building in Auckland Central to arrest Mr Vaka, the appellant’s former partner, who had an outstanding warrant.

[6] On arriving at the apartment, Constable Asomua-Goodman advised Mr Vaka he was under arrest. Mr Vaka became frustrated and non-cooperative, causing the Constable to pull Mr Vaka out into the hallway and against the wall to handcuff him.

1 Dog Control Act 1996, s 57. Maximum penalty: $3,000 fine and destruction of the dog.
2 Auckland Council v Tuporo [2025] NZDC 15140.

[7] At this point, the dog ran out of the apartment and jumped up and bit Constable Asomua-Goodman’s left wrist, before quickly letting go and running back into the apartment.

[8] The Constable executed the arrest, before presenting to Auckland City Hospital for medical treatment. He had puncture wounds on his wrist and was required to take three days off work.

Decision under appeal

[9] The Judge outlined the offending before finding the Council was entitled to proceed by way of formal proof. He noted that Ms Tuporo had failed to answer two summonses served upon her (March and April 2025).3

[10] The Judge found the circumstances of the attack were proven by the formal statement of Constable Asomua-Goodman, and that Ms Tuporo’s dog ownership and registration were proven by the…

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 Tuporo 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: [2025] NZHC 3179
Decision Date: 23 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Layla Tuporo appeals against the decision of the Auckland District Court which convicted her for owning a dog that attacked a person and ordered the destruction of the dog. Tuporo argues that her non-appearance in court due to administrative error led to a miscarriage of justice, as she was unable to present her defence of total absence of fault. She also contends that the District Court erred in ordering the destruction of her dog, claiming that the circumstances of the attack were exceptional.

The court considered whether Tuporo's appeal against conviction and sentence should be allowed despite being filed out of time, and whether fresh evidence could be admitted. The court found that the interests of justice supported granting leave to appeal out of time but declined to admit Tuporo's affidavit as fresh evidence, as it was not credible or cogent enough to potentially lead to a different outcome. The court then assessed the merits of the appeals. Regarding the conviction, the court held that there was no miscarriage of justice, as Tuporo had proper notice of the hearing and there was no evidence to support her defence of total absence of fault. As for the sentence, the court found no error in the District Court's decision to order the destruction of the dog, as the circumstances of the attack were not exceptional, and the dog's behaviour posed a risk to public safety.

Ultimately, the court dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence, finding that the District Court's decision was consistent with the relevant statutory provisions and jurisprudence. The application for leave to appeal out of time was granted, but the application to adduce further evidence was declined.

Orders