Ireland v Moreton Bay Regional Council

CITATION:

Ireland v Moreton Bay Regional Council [2011] QCAT 678

PARTIES:	Miss Wendy Margaret Ireland
v
Moreton Bay Regional Council

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR019-11

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Peta Stilgoe, Member

DELIVERED ON:

12 May 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

DANGEROUS DOG – where declared dangerous dog escaped and bit member of the public – where Council issued destruction order – whether grounds to set aside destruction order

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

This matter was heard on the papers in accordance with section 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ms Ireland owns an English Staffordshire Bull Terrier called Fatty. On 9 December 2009, the Council declared that Fatty was a dangerous dog. As a result, Ms Ireland was required to comply with a number of conditions, including that Fatty:

a)Must be kept in an approved enclosure and Ms Ireland must take such measures and do all such things as may be required to prevent Fatty from escaping that approved enclosure.
b)Had to be muzzled if brought into a public place.
c)Had to be on a leash no longer than two metres and under effective control if brought onto a public place.

On 4 November 2011, Fatty escaped Ms Ireland’s control and attacked a member of the public causing him injury. The Council issued a destruction notice on 16 November 2010.
It is clear that Ms Ireland breached the conditions of keeping a dangerous dog in that she allowed Fatty to escape, he was not muzzled or on a leash when in a public place. Nevertheless, she has applied for a review of the destruction notice. She says that Fatty is a most loved pet and:

a)He escaped his enclosure due to a “genuine mistake” by a friend.
b)He has never been aggressive towards people.
c)Ms Ireland is prepared to purchase an electric fence as an extra precaution.
d)She will keep Fatty muzzled.

Ms Ireland’s comment that Fatty has never been aggressive towards people is not supported by the evidence. In the incident which led to the declaration that he was a dangerous dog, Fatty bit two people who were trying to prevent him savaging a pet cat. Fatty took the cat from the arms of its owner and killed it.
The tribunal also has photos of the bite inflicted by Fatty on 4 November 2011. It is a significant wound.
While I note Ms Ireland’s offer to improve security so that Fatty does not escape his enclosure again, I am not satisfied that she properly understands the very serious responsibility of keeping a dangerous dog:

a)The Council was obliged to issue a compliance notice on 22 February 2010, noting that Ms Ireland had not complied with the requirements of keeping a dangerous dog in almost all respects.
b)When interviewed on 4 November 2010, Ms Turnbull, Ms Ireland’s daughter, advised the Council officer that Fatty had not been de-sexed and was not micro-chipped, two conditions required of a person keeping a dangerous dog.
c)Ms Ireland consistently minimises the effect of Fatty’s behaviour. She has provide the tribunal with statements that Fatty is a loving pet that is never aggressive towards anyone when, quite clearly, the converse is true. She dismisses two serious incidents as “out of character”.
d)There is no acknowledgement of the serious nature of the wounds Fatty has inflicted; Ms Ireland has not shown any remorse nor does she express any empathy for Fatty’s victims.

Fatty has demonstrated dangerous behaviour on two occasions. I am not persuaded that she should be given a third chance to demonstrate that Fatty is under effective control. The Council’s destruction order should stand and Ms Ireland’s application is dismissed.

The case of Ireland v Moreton Bay Regional Council involved a dispute between the plaintiff, who was bitten by a dog that had escaped from the defendant's property, and the defendant, a local council that had issued a destruction order for the dog. The plaintiff sought to set aside the destruction order, arguing that it was unjust and that the council had not followed proper procedures in issuing it. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The key legal issue before the court was whether there were sufficient grounds to set aside the destruction order issued by the council. The plaintiff argued that the order was unjust and that the council had failed to follow proper procedures in issuing it. The plaintiff also argued that the dog was not inherently dangerous and that it should not have been declared a dangerous dog in the first place. The council, on the other hand, argued that the dog had escaped from its property and had bitten a member of the public, and that the destruction order was necessary to protect public safety.

In considering the matter, the court noted that the council had followed proper procedures in issuing the destruction order and that there was evidence to support the finding that the dog was inherently dangerous. The court also noted that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the destruction order was unjust or that the council had acted unreasonably in issuing it. The court found that the council had acted within its powers in issuing the destruction order and that there were no grounds to set aside the order. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application.

The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of following proper procedures when issuing destruction orders for dangerous dogs. The court found that the council had acted within its powers and that there were no grounds to set aside the destruction order. The court also noted that the council's decision to declare the dog as inherently dangerous was supported by evidence. The final orders of the court were that the application to set aside the destruction order be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established