Functions:
·
To conduct hearings and/or determine under delegated authority
applications relating to the Dog Control Act 1996, all matters relating to
Temporary Road Closures pursuant to Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government
Act 1974, matters relating to naming features within the city, and any other
matters required for determination by Council under legislation as determined
by Council.
Membership:
·
All elected members aside from the Mayor, in rotation. Each
Hearings Panel-Other will be made up of three members.
·
The Group Manager Environmental Management may appoint one or
more Independent Commissioners to either assist the Hearings Panel - Other or
to hear and determine any particular application, such as when Council or a
Council-Controlled Organisation or Council-Controlled Trading Organisation is (or
could be perceived to be) an interested party, other than applications made for
temporary road closure under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government
Act 1974.
Powers to
Decide:
·
The power to appoint a panel to hear and determine with any other
consent authority any application requiring a joint hearing
·
The power to hear and recommend appropriate actions from hearings
of designations and heritage orders
·
The power to hear, consider and attempt to resolve contested road
stopping procedures
·
The power to consider and determine applications for temporary
road closures made under Schedule 10 Clause 11(e) of the Local Government Act
1974
·
The power to hear and determine all matters arising from the
administration of the Building Act 1991, and the Building Act 2004
·
The power to hear and determine objections to the classification
of dogs, and all other procedural matters for which a right of objection and
hearing is provided for under the Dog Control Act, 1996
·
The power to name all features within the city requiring naming
including roads, streets, service lanes, plazas, parking areas, parks,
reserves, gardens and all public facilities or infrastructure, aside from those
impacted by the Naming Rights and Sponsorship Policy for Community Services
Facilities
·
The power to provide advice to applicants on appropriate names
for private roads, rights of way or other legal forms of private access to
property
·
The power to make changes to the schedules to the Parking and
Vehicle Control Bylaw that do not require public consultation
·
The power to hear submissions and recommendations on proposed
changes to the schedules to the Parking and Vehicle Control Bylaw requiring
public consultation
·
The power to administer the administering body functions under
section 48 of the Reserves Act 1977 on proposed rights of way and other
easements on reserves vested in Council
Item 6: Objection to
Disqualification from being an owner of a dog - Natalie Louise Griffith
|
|
Hearings Panel - Other
7 July 2021
|
REPORT R24807
Objection
to Disqualification from being an owner of a dog - Natalie Louise Griffith
1. Purpose
of Report
1.1 To
decide on an objection to disqualification from being an owner of a dog, for
dog owner Natalie Louise Griffith, pursuant to Section 26 of the Dog Control
Act 1996.
2. Summary
2.1 Ms
Griffith owns an American Bulldog named Beau. Due to reported and
observed aggressive behaviour, on 19 August 2020, Beau was classified as
menacing.
2.2 Section
25 (1), Dog Control Act 1996 (The Act) states a territorial authority must
disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog if: (a) the person commits
three or more infringement offences (not relating to a single incident or
occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months. (Attachment 1, A2635128).
2.3 The
period of disqualification imposed may be up to five years.
2.4 On
15 March 2021 Ms Griffith was issued with a Notice of Disqualification from Dog
Ownership, pursuant to Section 25, Dog Control Act 1996. The period of
disqualification imposed was five years, ending on 15 March 2026.
(Attachment 2, A2593393)
2.5 Ms
Griffith has objected to her disqualification (Attachment 3, A2635146)
3. Recommendation
|
That the Hearings Panel - Other
1. Receives
the report Objection to Disqualification from being an owner of a dog -
Natalie Louise Griffith (R24807)
and its attachments (A2635128, A2635136, A2635146, A2635149, A2635164); and
2. Dismisses the objection of Natalie
Louise Griffith to being disqualified from being an owner of a dog; and
3. Upholds the five-year
disqualification of Natalie Louise Griffith from being an owner of a dog.
|
4. Background
4.1 Ms
Griffith has demonstrated repeated non-compliance with the Dog Control Act 1996
with 12 separate incidents since August 2018. (Attachment 4, A2635149).
4.2 In
summary, the history relating to Ms Griffith:
(a) Failed
to register Beau for the 2020 to 2021 year and an Infringement Notice was issued
on 19 August 2020;
(b) Infringement
Notice for Failing to keep Beau under control on 13 October 2020 when a Police
Sergeant visited Ms Griffith at her home address and was prevented from getting
out of his vehicle by the aggressive approach of Beau;
(c) Infringement
Notice for Failing to keep Beau under control on 28 December 2020 when an
occupant of an Orakei Street, Tahunanui house was chased by Beau up the drive
and into the garage;
(d) Infringement
Notice for Failing to comply with the muzzling requirement under the menacing
classification of Beau on 3 March 2021 when a member of the public was bailed
up by him when walking up the Tamaki Street steps;
(e) Infringement
Notice for Failing to comply with the muzzling requirements under the menacing classification
of Beau on 20 March 2021 when he was sighted with Ms Griffith, unmuzzled on
Tahunanui Drive.
5. Discussion
Legislation around
disqualification as a dog owner and Objection to disqualification
5.1 Section
25 (1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides that:
A territorial authority
must disqualify a person from being an owner of a dog if—
(a) the
person commits three or more infringement offences (not relating to a single
incident or occasion) within a continuous period of 24 months; or
(b)
the person is convicted of an offence (not being an infringement offence)
against this Act; or
(c)
the person is convicted of an offence against Part
1 or Part
2 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999, section
26ZZP of the Conservation Act 1987, or section
56I of the National Parks Act 1980.
5.2 Section
25 (3) of the Dog Control Act 1996 provides that:
A disqualification under
subsection (1) continues in force for a period specified by the territorial
authority not exceeding five years from the date of the third infringement
offence or offences (as the case may be) in respect of which the person is
disqualified.
5.3 Objection
to disqualification:
Section 26 of the Dog Control
Act 1996 outlines that:
Every person disqualified
under section
25—
(a) may
object to the disqualification by lodging with the territorial authority a
written objection to the disqualification; and
(b) shall
be entitled to be heard in support of the objection.
(2) An
objection under this section may be lodged at any time but no objection shall
be lodged within 12 months of the hearing of any previous objection to the
disqualification.
(3) In
considering any objection under this section, the territorial authority shall
have regard to—
(a) the
circumstances and nature of the offence or offences in respect of which the
person was disqualified; and
(b) the
competency of the person objecting in terms of responsible dog ownership; and
(c) any
steps taken by the owner to prevent further offences;
and
(d) the matters advanced in support of the objection; and
(e) any other relevant matters.
(4) In
determining any objection, the territorial authority may uphold, bring forward
the date of termination, or immediately terminate the disqualification of any
person and shall give written notice of its decision, the reasons for it, and
the right of appeal under section
27 to the objector. (Attachment 5, A2635164)
5.4 This
recommendation is not inconsistent with any other previous Council decision.
The circumstances and nature
of the offences in respect of which Natalie Louise Griffith was disqualified
5.5 Ms
Griffith failed to register Beau for the 2020 to 2021 registration year. She
was issued with a 14-day notice requiring her to register her dog Beau.
5.6 Ms
Griffith failed to register the dog and an Infringement Notice was issued on 19
August 2020 for Failing to register Beau. This Notice was unpaid and was sent
to Court for collection pursuant to Section 21, Summary Proceedings Act 1957.
5.7 On
13 October 2020, a Police Sergeant visited Ms Griffith at her home address in
Orakei Street, Tahunanui and was prevented from getting out of his vehicle by
the aggressive approach of Beau. The Sergeant was forced to pepper spray Beau.
5.8 For
this aggressive behaviour by Beau, Ms Griffith was issued an Infringement
Notice for Failing to keep Beau under control. This Notice was unpaid and was
sent to the Court for collection pursuant to Section 21, Summary Proceedings
Act 1957.
5.9 On
28 December 2020, an occupant of an Orakei Street, Tahunanui house returned to
the address on his bicycle and was chased up the drive and into the garage by
Beau.
5.10 For
this aggressive behaviour by Beau, Ms Griffith was issued an Infringement
Notice for Failing to keep Beau under control. This Notice was unpaid and was
sent to the Court for collection pursuant to Section 21, Summary Proceedings
Act 1957.
The competency of Natalie
Louise Griffith in terms of responsible dog ownership
5.11 Ms
Griffith first became a dog owner with Nelson City Council in August 2018, when
she took ownership of a four-month-old American Bulldog named Paige, which she
failed to register.
5.12 Since
August 2018, Ms Griffith has come to the attention of Nelson City Council Dog
Control on no less than 12 occasions. It is the view of Nelson City
Council Dog Control that Ms Griffith is neither competent nor responsible in
terms of dog ownership. This opinion is underpinned by her history of
non-compliance with The Act.
Steps taken by Natalie
Griffith to prevent further offences
5.13 Ms
Griffith has taken no steps to prevent further offences.
Matters advanced in support
of the objection
5.14 On
29 March 2021, Ms Griffith submitted an e-mail, that is advanced in support of
her objection. Ms Griffith has put forward no further matters in support of her
objection. Ms Griffith indicated she would provide a formal letter in
relation to her objection but at the time of writing this report no letter has
been received.
Any other relevant matters
5.15 Since
being served with disqualification papers, Ms Griffith has continued to ignore
her obligations under the Dog Control Act 1996 in relation to owning a menacing
classified dog (Beau), particularly in relation to the requirement to muzzle
the dog.
5.16 On
3 March 2021, Ms Griffith was with her menacing classified dog, Beau on the
Tamaki Steps, Tahunanui. Beau was not muzzled as required and acted in an aggressive
manner towards a member of the public. For this breach
Ms Griffith has been issued another Infringement Notice.
5.17 On
20 March 2021, Ms Griffith was seen by a Nelson City Council Dog Control
Officer, with Beau on Tahunanui Drive. Beau was not muzzled as required. For
this breach Ms Griffith has been issued another Infringement Notice.
6. Options
|
Option 1: Uphold the
Disqualification or bring forward the date of termination of Disqualification
(Recommended Option)
|
|
Advantages
|
· Ms
Griffith will not be legally permitted to own or be in possession a dog or
have any dog living at her address.
· Ms
Griffith will have to dispose of her dog Beau within 14 days.
· This
will prevent further offences by Ms Griffith against the Dog Control Act
1996.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· This
may have a negative impact on the activities Ms Griffith enjoys with Beau.
|
|
Option
2: The Objection be Upheld
|
|
Advantages
|
· Ms
Griffith will be able to retain ownership of her dog Beau.
|
|
Risks and Disadvantages
|
· This
will increase the risk of Ms Griffith further breaching the Dog Control Act
1996 in relation to the requirement to muzzle Beau.
· This
will increase the risk of people or other animals being confronted by Beau.
|
7. Conclusion
7.1 Ms
Griffith has been issued with three qualifying Infringement Offences under the
Dog Control Act 1996, namely: 19 August 2020 – Failed to register Beau,
13 October 2020 – Failure to control Beau, 28 December 2020 –
Failure to control Beau.
7.2 Ms
Griffith was correctly disqualified as a dog owner as required by Section 25 of
The Act. The disqualification period imposed was five years. Because of
the Dog Control history of Ms Griffith, the five-year period is considered to
be appropriate.
7.3 Ms
Griffith has disregarded the requirements of dog owners under the Dog Control
Act 1996. Since being disqualified, Ms Griffith has been issued two
further infringement notices for breaches of the requirement to muzzle her
menacing classified dog Beau.
8. Next
Steps
8.1 The
Dog Control Act 1996, Section 26(4) outlines that:
In determining any objection,
the territorial authority may uphold, bring forward the date of termination, or
immediately terminate the disqualification of any person and shall give written
notice of its decision, the reasons for it, and the right of appeal under section
27 to the objector.
Author: Brian
Wood, Team Leader Regulatory (Environmental Inspections)
Attachments
Attachment 1: A2635128
Dog Control Act 1996 Section 25 Disqualification of owners ⇩
Attachment 2: A265136
Notice of Disqualification from Dog Ownership - Natalie Griffith ⇩
Attachment 3: A2635146
Objection to Disqualification as Dog Owner Natalie Griffith ⇩
Attachment 4: A2635149
Natalie Griffith Dog Owner History ⇩
Attachment 5: A2635164
Dog Control Act 1996 Section 26 Objection to Disqualification ⇩
|
Important considerations for decision making
|
|
1. Fit
with Purpose of Local Government
The regulatory functions of dog control meet the
purpose of the Local Government Act 2002, Section 3(d) - provides for
local authorities to play a broad role in promoting the social, economic,
environmental, and cultural well-being of their communities, taking a
sustainable development approach. The Dog Control Act 1996 provisions are
being applied appropriately to minimise the public risk.
|
|
2. Consistency
with Community Outcomes and Council Policy
The recommendation aligns with the Council’s
Community outcomes, specifically Our communities are healthy, safe,
inclusive and resilient. The recommendation aligns with
Council’s Dog Control Policy by having regard to the need to minimise
the danger, distress and nuisance to the community caused by dogs and/or by
non-compliant owners.
|
|
3. Risk
Council has obligations under the Dog Control Act
1996 to follow the correct legal process.
There is a risk to the community from future
incidents if the recommendation is not supported.
|
|
4. Financial
impact
There is no financial impact for Council.
|
|
5. Degree
of significance and level of engagement
The recommendations outlined in this report are not
considered significant in terms of Council’s Significance and
Engagement Policy and therefore no engagement will be undertaken.
|
|
6. Climate
Impact
This decision will have no impact on the ability of
the Council or District to proactively respond to the impacts of climate
change now or in the future.
|
|
7. Inclusion
of Māori in the decision making process
No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in
preparing this report.
|
|
8. Delegations
The Hearings Panel – Other has the following
delegations:
· To hear
and determine objections to the classifications of dogs and all other
procedural matters for which a right of objection and hearing is provided for
under the Dog Control Act 1996.
|
