1. A local government may, by a notice in writing given in accordance with s 33F, declare an individual dog to be a dangerous dog (declared) (dangerous dog declaration) if, in the opinion of the local government, one of three things is shown:[2] the dog has caused injury or damage by an attack on, or chasing, a person, animal or vehicle; or the dog has, repeatedly, shown a tendency to attack, or chase, a person, animal or vehicle even though no injury has been caused by that behaviour, or has, repeatedly, shown a tendency to threaten to attack; or the behaviour of the dog meets other criteria prescribed for the purpose of this section.[3]
2. A dangerous dog declaration remains in force until the dog dies, the declaration is revoked by the local government, or the decision pursuant to which the declaration was given is quashed by the Tribunal.[4]

Application for revocation of dangerous dog declaration by local government

1. The local government may, on the application of the owner of the dog, revoke a dangerous dog declaration if the local government is satisfied that the dog can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations.[5]
2. The local government must, as soon as is practicable, give notice in writing to the owner of the dog, of any refusal to revoke the dangerous dog declaration and of the reasons for the making of the decision.[6]

Review by Tribunal of decision by local government to dismiss application to revoke dangerous dog declaration

1. Where an application to revoke a dangerous dog declaration is made and the local government dismisses the application, the owner may, within seven days, apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.[7]

10 This application falls within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction under the Dog Act and the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) (SAT Act).[8] In exercising the Tribunal's review jurisdiction, the Tribunal is to review the decision in question by way of a hearing de novo for the purposes of producing the correct and preferable decision on the basis of the information and the evidence before the Tribunal at the time of review.[9]

1. The Tribunal does not determine the validity or otherwise of the reviewable decision.[10]
2. The Tribunal is not limited in its consideration to the material that was before the original decision-maker, nor to a consideration of the original decision-maker's reasoning alone.[11]
3. All of the functions and discretions conferred on the original decision-maker are conferred on the Tribunal in addition to the powers conferred on the Tribunal by the SAT Act.[12] Accordingly, the Tribunal stands in the shoes of the City to make the correct or preferable decision.[13]
4. On review, the Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the reviewable decision and, in the latter case, may substitute its own decision to arrive at the correct and preferable decision.[14]
5. At the outset, I note that there is nothing in the Dog Act which would allow the Tribunal to remove one or more requirements of the dangerous dog declaration such as the requirement to wear a muzzle. There is also nothing in the Dog Act which would allow the Tribunal to revoke a dangerous dog declaration and, instead, impose conditions on the keeping of the dog such as a condition that the dog is required to be leashed at all times in a public place.[15] These limitations on the Tribunal's powers arise in part because non-compliance with any of the requirements of a dangerous dog declaration constitutes a criminal offence.[16]

1. A final hearing of the application was held in the Tribunal on 24 October 2024, 19 December 2024 and 30 January 2025 (Hearing).
2. Each of the parties filed various documents which were compiled into a Hearing Book prepared by the Tribunal and taken into evidence as Exhibit 1.
3. Four other documents were taken into evidence:

(a) Exhibit 2: Email communications between the City and Mr Hunter dated 31 October 2024 and 8 November 2024;[17]

(b) Exhibit 3: Applicant's red USB Stick with videos of Gidge and Troopa;[18]

(c) Exhibit 4: Videos of Dr Nicole Lobry de Bruyn's assessment;[19] and

(d) Exhibit 5: Respondent's black USB stick with videos of Ms Tracey Lord's assessment.[20]

1. Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord gave their evidence concurrently on the first day of the Hearing. Ms Lord gave further evidence on the second day of the Hearing. Mr Hunter did not wish Dr Lobry de Bruyn to attend the second day of the hearing in person because of the cost involved but advised the Tribunal that Dr Lobry de Bruyn would be available by telephone if required. Mr Hunter gave evidence on the third day of the Hearing.
2. Mr Hunter also relied on a report from Dr Katherine Lindsey, but Dr Lindsey was not called to give evidence at the Hearing.
3. Both parties made oral closing submissions at the Hearing.[21]

The Applicant's request that the Tribunal meet Gidge and Troopa

1. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter kindly invited me to meet Gidge and Troopa at any location of my choosing.[22] I took Mr Hunter's request that I meet with Gidge and Troopa to be a request for a view or inspection of the dogs.
2. In Sino Iron Pty Ltd v Mineralogy Pty Ltd [No.7] [2025] WASC 103 at [4] - [5], His Honour Justice Lundberg stated:

At common law, the purpose of a view or inspection is to enable the Court 'to understand the questions that are being raised, to follow the evidence and to apply it, but not to put the result of the view in place of evidence'. The process does not permit the Court to gather anything in the nature of extraneous evidence and apply it to the determination of the issues.

The discretion whether to order that an inspection be undertaken will be driven by whether that inspection will assist the Court in resolving issues of fact or understanding the evidence, and if the inspection will be of forensic utility. Additionally, case management considerations will need to be assessed as part of the overall evaluation of any inspection application. (Footnotes omitted)

1. The key issue for the Tribunal in this proceeding is whether the Tribunal is satisfied that Gidge and Troopa can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations. Although I had no objection to meeting Gidge and Troopa, it was not necessary for me to meet Gidge and Troopa for any of the purposes for which a view or inspection is undertaken. In particular, it would have been impermissible for me to form my own views of the dogs' behaviour from such a view or inspection in place of the evidence of the experts in animal behaviour. Accordingly, I declined Mr Hunter's invitation.[23]
2. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter wished to play certain videos of his dogs to the expert witnesses. Mr Hunter asked for a certificate under s 11 of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) (Evidence Act) because he was concerned that he might incriminate himself as some of the videos he had taken of Gidge and Troopa might be construed as contravening the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations.[24] I ruled that I could not give such a certificate because a certificate under s 11 of the Evidence Act may only be given by a judge and the definition of that term[25] does not include an ordinary member of the Tribunal.[26] Mr Hunter indicated that he would play videos which did not incriminate him.[27]

1. The following facts are agreed between the parties,[28] or are not in dispute, and I find:

(a) Mr Hunter is the owner of two dogs named Gidge (an unsterilised female who weighs about 35 kilograms) and Troopa (a sterilised male who weighs about 40 - 42 kilograms);[29]

(b) Ms Kya Hunter, Mr Hunter's daughter, is the owner of two dogs named Hunter and Chaz;

(c) Hunter is a Staffy/Ridgeback cross and is the mother of Gidge, Troopa and Chaz;[30]

(d) Bear is a Rottweiler and is the father of Gidge, Troopa and Chaz;[31]

(e) Gidge, Troopa and Chaz are Rottweiler/Staffy/Ridgeback cross dogs who turned three years of age in December 2024;[32]

(f) on 16 October 2022, Gidge, Troopa, Hunter and Chaz were involved in an incident at a dog beach (the First Incident);

(g) on 8 November 2022, Gidge, Troopa, Chaz and Hunter were involved in an incident at a dog park (the Second Incident);

(h) on 9 November 2022, the City declared Gidge, Troopa, Chaz and Hunter as dangerous dogs under s 33E of the Dog Act;[33]

(i) at the time the four dogs were declared dangerous, all four dogs were being kept at Mr Hunter's property;

(j) Gidge and Troopa are currently kept at the applicant's property which is within the district of the City[34] whereas Chaz and Hunter now live with Ms Hunter at another address;[35]

(k) on 16 November 2022, Mr Hunter wrote to the City objecting to the City's decision to make the dangerous dog declarations in relation to Gidge and Troopa. This objection was refused by the City on the basis that Mr Hunter had a lack of control of his dogs and both attacks were severe and resulted in the injury of other animals;

(l) Mr Hunter submitted a further objection to the City in relation to their decision to make the dangerous dog declarations in relation to Gidge and Troopa. This objection was also refused by the City on the same basis as the previous refusal;

(m) Mr Hunter subsequently applied to have the City's decision to make the dangerous dog declarations reviewed by the Tribunal in proceeding CC 48 of 2023;

(n) on 2 June 2023, the Tribunal found that the declaration of each of Mr Hunter's dogs as dangerous dogs pursuant to s 33E(1) of the Dog Act was the correct and preferable decision and Mr Hunter's application for review was dismissed (Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision);[36]

(o) Mr Hunter applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision. Leave was refused;[37]

(p) on 1 May 2024, Mr Hunter applied to the City to revoke the dangerous dog declarations in respect of Gidge and Troopa;[38]

(q) on 21 May 2024, the City refused to revoke the dangerous dog declarations because of the pending criminal proceedings against Mr Hunter in the Magistrates Court;[39]

(r) on 12 June 2024, Mr Hunter lodged an application for review with the Tribunal;[40] and

(s) at the time of the Hearing, Mr Hunter was still awaiting trial on criminal charges arising out of the First Incident and the Second Incident.[41]

1. Dr Lindsey of Kalmpets Animal Behaviour Centre is a veterinarian, animal behaviouralist and zoologist.[42] Dr Lindsey has a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery and is a Member of the Australian New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists (Animal Behaviour).[43]
2. Dr Lobry de Bruyn of Animal Sense is a veterinarian, animal behaviouralist and a senior lecturer in clinical behavioural medicine at Murdoch University.[44] Dr Lobry de Bruyn has a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Veterinary Medicine and Surgery and is a Member of the Australian New Zealand College of Veterinary Scientists (Animal Behaviour).[45] She has previously worked at Kalmpets.[46]
3. Ms Lord is an Animal Management Officer at the City of South Perth. She has a Delta Certificate IV in animal behaviour and training and has worked with animals for many years.[47]
4. It was not in dispute between the parties and, having regard to their qualifications and experience, I find that both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Dr Lindsey are experts in the field of animal behaviour and, specifically, dog behaviour.
5. Mr Hunter challenged Ms Lord's qualifications as an expert because he said that she was not a veterinarian or a qualified animal behaviouralist. Mr Hunter also alleged that Ms Lord was biased because she was employed by the City of South Perth which is a client of the City's legal representatives.
6. In order for the evidence of a witness to be admitted in a particular field of expertise, it must be shown that the witness has become an expert in that field because of their training, study or experience.[48] Although Ms Lord does not have the same qualifications as Dr Lindsey or Dr Lobry de Bruyn, it is clear from an examination of her curriculum vitae[49] and the evidence she gave at the Hearing,[50] that she has significant experience in the field of animal behaviour and, specifically dog behaviour and has worked with both Dr Lindsey and Dr Lobry de Bruyn. At the Hearing, Ms Lord gave evidence that she had worked in the field of animal behaviour for 18 years.[51] I am satisfied and find that Ms Lord is an expert in the field of animal behaviour because of her significant experience working in that field and her qualification as outlined below.
7. First, Ms Lord worked as an Assessor for RSPCA WA between 2007 and 2010 and then as Head Dog Trainer at the Shenton Park Dogs' Refuge (Dogs' Refuge) between 2009 and 2013. In both these roles, Ms Lord assessed dogs' suitability for placement into the community by assessing their temperament and behaviour. In particular, when at the Dogs' Refuge, Ms Lord assessed dogs for local councils including screening for dangerous dog behaviour.
8. Second, between 2010 and 2015, Ms Lord was a tutor at the School of Veterinary and Biomedical Science at Murdoch University where she demonstrated temperament assessment of dogs to final year veterinary students.
9. Third, Ms Lord worked with Dr Lindsey at Kalmpets between 2013 and 2019 as a Behaviour Modification Therapist and Senior Behaviour Technician and her work involved the assessment of animals including screening for dangerous dog behaviour and providing reports for local councils and owners.
10. Fourth, between 2019 and 2020 Ms Lord was self-employed as an in-home animal behaviour consultant and provided services to both Dr Lindsey and Dr Lobry de Bruyn.
11. Fifth, Ms Lord has worked at the City of South Perth since 2020 to date as an Animal Care Facility Officer and an Animal Management Officer. In those roles Ms Lord, relevantly for present purposes: manages and provides care for impounded animals for 10 local governments; assesses impounded animals to determine suitability for placement into the community; and designs and implements behavioural modification and training programs for impounded animals.
12. Sixth, Ms Lord has a Delta Certificate IV in animal behaviour and training.
13. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter asked Ms Lord about her association with the City's legal representatives. Ms Lord responded that this was the second case in which she had assisted the City's legal representatives.[52]
14. Mr Hunter also asked Ms Lord whether there was a bit of bias towards what the City's legal representatives were asking and their opposition. I took Mr Hunter to mean that he thought Ms Lord was biased in favour of the City. Ms Lord responded that she had just been engaged to perform an assessment.[53]
15. There is, in my opinion, no evidence before the Tribunal that Ms Lord is biased in favour of the City. The fact that Ms Lord is employed by a client of the City's legal representative (the City of South Perth) does not make her biased in favour of the City. Ms Lord is not an employee of the City.
16. Further, and in any event, Mr Hunter repeatedly requested that Gidge and Troopa be assessed by a person of the City's choosing. Ms Lord is the person that the City chose to assess Gidge and Troopa. The fact that Ms Lord expressed different views to Dr Lindsey and Dr Lobry de Bruyn about the behaviour of Gidge and Troopa does not make her biased.
17. The evidence of the experts and the Tribunal's findings in relation to the expert evidence are set out below under Issue 2.

1. A number of videos of Gidge and Troopa were tendered in evidence.
2. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a number of videos of Gidge and Troopa being exercised in public places and visiting other premises.[54] The titles of these videos are:

(k) 'Messenger_creation_3B90B930-8155-4C6' (Video 11);

(l) 'Messenger_creation_07B50E33-2946-4267' (Video 12);

(m) 'Messenger_creation_1661D755-5A11-443 (Video 13); and

(n) 'Messenger_creation_46974954-80DS-468 (Video 14).

1. Videos of Gidge and Troopa at Dr Lobry de Bruyn's assessment were embedded via links in Dr Lobry de Bruyn's report but could not be accessed by the Tribunal through the report. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the Tribunal obtained access to those videos directly from Dr Lobry de Bruyn.[55] The titles of these videos are:

(a) 'Close up no muzzle' and 'https://youtu.be/FLseYKPHfCs' (Video 15);

(b) 'Two dogs' and 'https://youtu.be/OLLKxw7u7Kg' (Video 16);

(c) 'Trooper' and 'https://youtu.be/asLldEwyVqu'(**Video 17**);

(d) 'Two dog no muzzle' and 'https://youtu.be/NOMRW66ggCE' (Video 18);

(e) Two dogs G & T and 'https://youtu.be/6BfODxj\_1Ro' (Video 19);

(f) 'Meet Trainer' and 'https://youtu.be/BLIqnEEYelg' (Video 20);

(g) 'Gidget greet close' and 'https://youtu.be/k8IOryC7joM' (Video 21);

(h) 'Gidget greet' and 'https://youtu.be/9IMO1tPiMP8 (Video 22); and

(i) 'Trooper greet' and 'https://youtu.be/nIeLY919CSA (Video 23).

1. Videos of Gidge and Troopa at Ms Lord's assessment were also embedded via links in Ms Lord's report but again could not be accessed by the Tribunal through the report. However, the respondent provided the Tribunal with a USB stick containing those videos during the Hearing.[56] The titles of the videos are:

(a) Human greeting and owner control baseline mp4 (Video 24);

1. Some of these videos were played during the Hearing and I have watched each of these videos at least once since the Hearing. I have made reference to some of the videos in this decision.

Issue 1: Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to deal with the application?

1. Under s 33H(1) of the Dog Act, the owner of a dog may apply to the local government to revoke a dangerous dog declaration made in respect of that dog. However, an application to the local government cannot be made until:[57]

(a) any objection or application for review in respect of the notice sought to be revoked has been determined; or

(b) one year has elapsed since the giving of that notice, or since any preceding application under subsection (1) was determined.

1. As outlined above, where an application to revoke a dangerous dog declaration is made to a local government and dismissed, the owner may, within seven days, apply to the Tribunal for a review of the decision.[58]
2. I am satisfied that the prerequisites to the exercise of the Tribunal's jurisdiction have been met and that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with the application. This is for the following reasons:
   • (a) Mr Hunter's application for review to the City was made following the determination of the review proceedings in the Tribunal on 2 June 2023 and more than one year after the dangerous dog declarations were made on 9 September 2022;
   • (b) the City dismissed (that is, refused to revoke) Mr Hunter's application for a review of the dangerous dog declarations in respect of Gidge and Troopa;[59] and
   • (c) on 10 October 2024, I granted Mr Hunter an extension of time to lodge his application for review (since the application was lodged in the Tribunal after the seven-day period required under s 33H(5)(a) of the Dog Act).

Issue 2: Should the Tribunal affirm, vary or set aside the City's decision?

1. The dangerous dog declarations made in respect of Gidge and Troopa cannot be revoked unless, in relation to each dog, the Tribunal is satisfied that the dog can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of 'this Act'.

1. The words 'can', 'kept', 'likelihood' and 'contravention' are not defined in the Dog Act.
2. The word 'can' is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary Online relevantly to mean 'to be able to'.
3. The word 'kept' is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary Online as the past tense and past participle of keep. The term 'keep' is defined in the Macquarie Online Dictionary to mean, relevantly 'to maintain or support', to take care of; tend', and 'to save, hold, or retain in possession.' In the context of the Dog Act, I consider that the word 'kept' includes exercising some degree of possession or control over the dog,[60] such as by housing the dog and taking it out for a walk or run.
4. The word 'likelihood' is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary Online edition as:

noun 1. the state of being likely or probable; probability.

2. a probability or chance of something: there is a strong likelihood of his succeeding.

1. The word 'contravention' is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary Online edition as 'noun the act of contravening; action counter to something; violation'. The term 'contravene' is defined in the Macquarie Dictionary Online edition as:

'verb (t) (contravened, contravening)

1. to come or be in conflict with; go or act counter to; oppose.
2. to violate, infringe, or transgress: to contravene the law.
3. The word 'contravene' is also defined in the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) (Interpretation Act) as follows:

... in relation to any requirement or condition prescribed in a written law or in any grant, permit, lease, licence, or other authority under a written law, includes a failure to comply with that requirement or condition;

1. In my view, the definition of 'contravene' in the Interpretation Act is of assistance in providing a definition of the word 'contravention' in the Dog Act. This is for two reasons. First, because there is no definition to the contrary in the Dog Act and because there is nothing in the intent and object of the Dog Act or something in the subject or context of the Dog Act which is inconsistent with such application.[61] Second, because where a word or phrase is defined in a written law, other parts of speech and grammatical forms of that word or phrase have corresponding meanings.[62]
2. Under the Interpretation Act, a reference in a written law to a written law is to be construed so as to include a reference to any subsidiary legislation made under that written law.[63] The Dog Regulations are subsidiary legislation made under the Dog Act. Therefore, the term 'this Act' includes a reference to the Dog Act and the Dog Regulations.
3. Accordingly, the question as to whether a dog can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of 'this Act' involves a consideration of whether a dog is able to be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations.
4. There are two sections of the Dog Act which I consider to be relevant for present purposes: namely, s 32 and s 33D.
5. Section 32(1) of the Dog Act relevantly provides that a dog shall not be in a dog exercise area unless the dog is being supervised by a competent person who is in reasonable proximity to the dog. A person is a competent person for the purposes of subsection (1) only if: [64]

(a) he is a person who is liable for the control of the dog;[65] and

(b) he is capable of controlling it; and

(c) he is carrying and capable of attaching to the dog for the purpose of controlling it, a chain, cord, leash or harness of sufficient strength and not exceeding the prescribed length.

1. If a dog is at any time in any place in contravention of s 32(1) of the Dog Act, then every person liable for the control of the dog at that time commits an offence unless the person establishes a defence under s 33B.
2. Section 33D(1) of the Dog Act provides that if a dog attacks or chases any person or animal and physical injury is caused to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, then every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.
3. Section 33(2A) of the Dog Act provides that if a dog attacks or chases any person or animal without causing physical injury to the person or animal that is attacked or chased, every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence.

1. The Dog Act promotes, amongst other things, the protection of persons and animals from dogs which engage in inappropriate behaviour such as attacking or chasing another person or animal. This is reflected in the obligations imposed on persons liable for the control of a dog to keep their dog under control and in the measures which a local government may take to deal with dogs which engage in inappropriate behaviour, including the making of a dangerous dog declaration or the destruction of the dog.[66]
2. In Oh and City of Cockburn [2022] WASAT 81 (Oh) at [13],[67] the Tribunal referred to the protective approach to be taken in relation to matters arising in respect of dangerous dogs. I agree that a protective approach is appropriate.

Matters relevant to the assessment of whether or not a dog can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations

1. In my view, there are a number of matters relevant to an assessment of whether or not a dog the subject of a dangerous dog declaration can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations.[68] These are:

(a) matters relating to the dog the subject of the dangerous dog declaration; and

(b) matters relating to the owner of the dog or other persons who may be in control of the dog.

1. Matters relating to the dog to which the Tribunal should have regard include:

(a) the behaviour giving rise to the making of the dangerous dog declaration;

(b) the dog's personal details such as breed, age, size, health, whether desexed;

(c) any relevant characteristics of the breed and any genetic factors;

(d) the dog's antecedents and, in particular, whether there have been any further incidents involving the dog since the making of the dangerous dog declaration;

(e) the dog's training and rehabilitation since the incidents giving rise to the making of the dangerous dog declaration; and

(f) whether the dog currently poses a risk to the safety of humans or other animals.

1. The Dog Act and the Dog Regulations impose significant obligations on persons liable for the control of the dog, including the owner of the dog. Persons liable for the control of the dog may be civilly or criminally liable for the behaviour of a dog which results in a contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations. This is because, ultimately, a person liable for the control of the dog must take responsibility for the behaviour of the dog and have effective control of the dogs to prevent, inter alia, a contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations. A dog's behaviour is generally reflective of the ability of the person liable for the control of the dog to exercise effective control over and manage the dog. Therefore, matters relating to persons who are liable for the control of the dog are relevant to whether the Tribunal may be satisfied that the dog in question can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations.
2. Matters relating to the owner of the dog or other persons who may be liable for the control of the dog to which the Tribunal should have regard include:

(a) their insight into the behaviour of the dog which led to the making of the dangerous dog declaration;

(b) their insight into, and understanding of, the dog's behaviour more generally;

(c) measures which they have taken in response to the conduct which led to the making of the dangerous dog declaration;

(d) their compliance with the Dog Act and Dog Regulations (including the requirements of the dangerous dog declaration);

(g) their willingness to engage with the relevant local government authority charged with the enforcement of the Dog Act and the Dog Regulations; and

(h) any other matters bearing upon responsible dog ownership.

The behaviour giving rise to the making of the dangerous dog declaration

1. It is important that the Tribunal have a baseline to work from when considering whether or not a particular dog will be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations. The Tribunal cannot view a dog's current behaviour in isolation but must understand the context in which the dangerous dog declaration was made. In other words, the Tribunal needs to examine whether or not there is a risk that the dog will repeat the behaviour which resulted in the making of the dangerous dog declaration because past behaviour may be an indication of future behaviour. Of course, if other negative behaviours have come to light since the making of the dangerous dog declaration, then it would be necessary to take these into account as well. The behaviour of a dog which gave rise to the making of a dangerous dog declarations forms part of the antecedents of the dog.
2. Accordingly, matters relating to the making of the dangerous dog declaration to which the Tribunal should have regard include: what the conduct was; where the conduct took place; the target of the offending conduct (adult, child, a dog or another animal); and the nature of the injuries caused (if any).
3. It is not in dispute and I find that the dangerous dog declarations were made against Gidge and Troopa because the City alleged that:[69]
   1. On 16 October 2022 at approximately 1500pm at Hillarys Dog Beach, Whitfords Avenue Hillarys, the dog identified as [Gidge/Troopa] was involved in an attack on another dog, causing injury; and
   2. On 8 November 2022 at approximately 1730pm at Charonia Park, 61 Charonia Road Mullaloo, the dog identified as [Gidge/Troopa] was involved in an attack on another dog, causing injury.
4. It is not in dispute that the First Incident occurred on 16 October 2022 when Mr Hunter took Gidge, Troopa, Hunter and Chaz to Hillarys Dog Beach and all four dogs were off leash.[70] In the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, the Tribunal found in relation to the First Incident that:

(a) all four dogs were involved in the attack;[71]

(b) the attack involved one of the dogs biting a Boxer to the flank and this bite caused the injury documented as a puncture wound which required veterinary treatment;[72]

(c) the behaviour of the other three dogs, which involved rushing towards the Boxer in an aggressive manner, circling him on the beach and chasing him was either an attack or chasing of the Boxer;[73] and

(d) the attack was not provoked by the Boxer and there was no behaviour by the Boxer preceding the attack which contributed to the attack occurring.[74]

1. It is not in dispute that the Second Incident occurred on 8 November 2022 when Ms Hunter took Gidge, Troopa, Hunter and Chaz to Charonia Dog Park and that Gidge, Troopa and Hunter were off leash but Chaz was not.[75] In the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, the Tribunal found in relation to the Second Incident that:

(a) one of the dogs bit the Groodle on the neck;[76]

(d) the injuries inflicted on the Groodle were caused by the attack on the Groodle by all four dogs acting in unison;[77]

(e) the Groodle had emergency veterinary treatment for several puncture wounds to her body;[78]

(f) the aggressive rushing, chasing and harassing by the four dogs permitted one or more of the dogs to bite the Groodle;[79] and

(g) the attack was not provoked by the Groodle.[80]

1. The injuries sustained by the Boxer and the Groodle are described in the veterinary reports in relation to each dog and the photos of the Groodle's injuries.[81] Not all of the injuries sustained by the Boxer and Groodle were described as superficial.
2. It was apparent during the Hearing, that Mr Hunter does not accept the findings of the Tribunal in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, even though leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision was refused by the Supreme Court. However, it is not my task to review the findings made by the Tribunal in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision. Those findings stand and they are the basis upon which the Tribunal upheld the making of the dangerous dog declarations by the City against Gidge and Troopa. My task is to review the City's decision in May 2024 to refuse to revoke the dangerous dog declarations.

1. I have found that Gidge is a 3-year-old, unsterilised female Rottweiler/Staffy/Ridgeback cross who weighs about 35 kilograms.[82] I have also found that Troopa is a is a 3-year-old, sterilised male Rottweiler/Staffy/Ridgeback cross who weighs about 40­42 kilograms.[83]
2. Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord gave evidence, which is not in dispute, and I find that Gidge and Troopa were puppies or adolescents at the time of the First Incident and Second Incident but at 3 years of age they are now mature dogs and their behaviour will be set.[84]
3. Dr Lobry de Bruyn gave evidence, which is not in dispute, that Gidge and Troopa 'look essentially like Rottweilers'.[85] Dr Lobry de Bruyn's evidence was consistent with the videos of Gidge and Troopa. Accordingly, I find that Gidge and Troopa look like Rottweilers.
4. Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord agreed, and I find, that sterilisation would not affect behaviour.[86]
5. Mr Hunter gave evidence that 'they are both very healthy dogs.' Mr Hunter's evidence was not in dispute and I find that Gidge and Troopa are in good health.[87]

Characteristics of the breed and any genetic factors

1. Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord both gave evidence that Rottweilers are herding dogs.[88] Dr Lobry de Bruyn said that they have 'a more elevated tendency to chase and herd than some other breeds'.[89]
2. Ms Lord gave evidence that she thought that there might be a genetic component to the behaviour of Gidge and Troopa because their mother had been involved in the First Incident and Second Incidents. Dr Lobry de Bruyn agreed that dogs develop behaviour from a parent dog and that that 'there's genetics, environment and learning in every behaviour you look at'.[90]
3. Based on the evidence of Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord, I find that Rottweilers are herding dogs and, because they are part Rottweiler, Gidge and Troopa have a more elevated tendency to chase and herd than some other breeds and may inflict injury because of their size. I also find that there is a genetic component to their behaviour.

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence that he had not had any complaints about his dogs prior to the First Incident and Second Incident[91] and that none of his dogs had been declared dangerous before.[92] Mr Hunter said that he had never had any incidents with other dogs just 'a scrap here and there and things like that'.[93] Mr Hunter's evidence was not in dispute. Accordingly, I find that prior to the First Incident and the Second Incident neither Gidge nor Troopa had been involved in any incidents involving other dogs which required investigation by the City and that they had not previously been the subject of a dangerous dog declaration.
2. I have set out the Tribunal's findings in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision in relation to the behaviour of Gidge and Troopa which gave rise to the First Incident and Second Incident above and these findings form part of their antecedents.[94]
3. At the Hearing, Mr Hunter said that he had not had any complaints about his dogs since the Second Incident.[95]
4. Mr Hunter also gave evidence that Gidge and Troopa were seized by the City and held for 35 days.[96] He said that the dogs were returned to him because there was no evidence that his dogs were involved.[97] Mr Hunter's evidence was consistent with a document which appears to be an incident report from the City which stated that Gidge and Troopa were seized under warrant on 21 September 2023 as dogs of interest following a complaint that an attack by two dangerous dogs had occurred.[98] That incident report relevantly states:

Attended [applicant's address] with 2 police officers, Team Leader A.F. FOI133, FO162 and FO 185. Andrew Hunter was at the front of his property. Police served Andrew with warrant to seize dogs. Andrew was very argumentative alleging it wasn't a court ordered document, that his dogs were not involved in the most recent attack, and we had no right to take his dogs.

Andrew went inside his property with both police officers, the two dogs were muzzled by Andrew, then COJ slip leads were placed on each dog and brought out individually.

1 Male black and tan Rottweiler X was placed into COJ vehicle first. The second dog was a female black and tan Rottweiler X and placed into the second cage.

Both dogs didn't show any signs of aggression throughout.

1. Ms Lord gave evidence, which is not in dispute, that Gidge and Troopa have had little opportunity to engage in behaviour which is the same or similar to that behaviour which gave rise to the First Incident and Second Incident.[99]
2. Mr Hunter's evidence was not in dispute and, notwithstanding the seizure of Gidge and Troopa in September 2023, no evidence was led by the City that Gidge and Troopa had been involved in any other incidents since the making of the dangerous dog declarations. During closing submissions, Mr Beckett conceded that there is no evidence of any further attacks.[100]
3. Accordingly, based on Mr Hunter's evidence which is not in dispute and the City's concession, I find that there have not been any other incidents involving Gidge or Troopa reported to the City since the dangerous dog declarations were made.
4. However, although Gidge and Troopa have not been involved in any other incidents since the making of the dangerous dog declarations I find, based on Ms Lord's evidence, that this is because they have had very little opportunity to engage in further incidents because they have to be muzzled and on a leash in public.

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence that when Gidge and Troopa were puppies, he took them down to the park and trained them himself.[101]
2. In her report dated 27 November 2023, Dr Lindsey noted that Mr Hunter had completed the following training sessions:[102]
   1. Agile Dog Training 2-hour long session. Group session with 10 other dogs of all breeds and developmental stages.
   2. Hanrob training 1 one-on-one sessions. A further three sessions have been booked and will be attended.
   3. Ongoing home training reinforced 4 times weekly.
3. Mr Hunter gave evidence that, since the First and Second incidents, Gidge and Troopa had undergone further training. First, Agile dog training and then a number of one-on-one training sessions with Hanrob.[103]
4. Mr Hunter also said that Gidge and Troopa had not been able to undergo any further training with other dogs because the dog training companies will not put other people's dogs at risk because Gidge and Troopa have been declared dangerous dogs.[104]
5. Mr Hunter's evidence was not in dispute and I find that Gidge and Troopa have undergone further dog training since the First and Second Incidents. I also find that Gidge and Troopa have not been able to undergo any further training because of their status as dangerous dogs and, in particular, Gidge and Troopa cannot take part in any training with other dogs which is off leash and/or would involve the removal of their muzzles because of the restrictions imposed under the dangerous dog declarations.

Whether Gidge and Troopa pose a risk to the safety of humans or animals

1. Mr Hunter says that his dogs are 'good dogs' and 'fantastic dogs'.[105] Mr Hunter does not believe that his dogs are a threat to anyone or anything in the community.[106] He says that 'I am 100 per cent confident that my dogs aren't dangerous'.[107] Mr Hunter also said that he would not keep a dog that was dangerous and that he would not want any other dog to get injured by mine or anyone else's dog.[108] Mr Hunter pointed to the behaviour of Gidge and Troopa in Videos 1 to 14 inclusive in support of his evidence that his dogs are not dangerous.
2. The City contends that Gidge and Troopa pose a risk to other dogs. It is not contended by the City that Gidge and Troopa pose a risk to humans.
3. Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord agreed and, on the basis of their evidence, I find that:

(a) a prior attack incident by a dog makes it more likely that that there will be an attack in the future;[109]

(b) when dogs are together in a group they are more likely to get aroused and engage in social contagion, whether or not they are related[110] and there is less arousal if two rather than four dogs are out together because four dogs will potentially have more social contagion between them;[111]

(c) dogs which engage in predatory behaviour are resistant to training and behaviour modification and should not be let off leash;[112]

(d) there is a low chance of recalling a dog engaged in the predatory motor sequence and human intervention would be difficult and could cause injury to the human;[113]

(e) the size and or breed of the dog might make them more likely to injure another dog[114] and a Rottweiler cross can inflict injury because of its size;[115] and

(f) a dog's history is relevant to any assessment of the dog's behaviour and it is important to assess a dog in an environment which is as close as possible to the environment which existed at the time of the dog attack.[116]

1. The expert witnesses expressed different views about the risks posed by Gidge and Troopa. Their views may be summarised as follows:

(a) Dr Lindsey is of the opinion that Gidge and Troopa do not exhibit any behaviours that pose a risk to any person and are unlikely to do so in the future and that she was not able to identify any behavioural signs or risk that would indicate that either dog would engage in an unprovoked attack;

(b) Dr Lobry de Bruyn is of the opinion that neither Gidge or Troopa showed a level of concerning or dangerous behaviour; and

(c) Ms Lord is of the opinion that Gidge and Troopa pose a risk to other dogs because of their predatory behaviour.

1. Given the opposing views expressed by the experts, it is necessary to set out their views in some detail.

1. Dr Lindsey assessed Gidge and Troopa at Kalmpets Clinic in Claremont on 24 November 2023. The assessment included updated behavioural history, updated medical history and a walk-through community space to assess response to novelty.[117]
2. There are no videos of Dr Lindsey's assessment.
3. In her report dated 27 November 2023,[118] Dr Lindsey gave the following opinion:

In relation to the incidents occurring on 16th October and 8th November 2022 there is no evidence to support a position that either Gidget or Trooper were involved in an "Attack". Gidget or Trooper have consistently demonstrated normal social skills for their age and developmental stage.

In determination of where an injury is sustained as a result of a dog attack a thorough assessment of both Gidget and Trooper needs to be made with regard to their temperament, behavioural and medical history and whether either dog demonstrates propensity and motivation to attack in the circumstances that were present at the time of the incidents.

In relation to incidents occurring on 16th October and 8th November 2022 it is my opinion that:

• There is no behavioural evidence to support an act of attack in either case.
• Injuries were superficial, resolved with minor medical intervention.
• In my assessments of Gidget and Trooper behaviour I have not been able to identify any behavioural signs or risk that would indicate that either dog would engage in unprovoked attack.
• In well socialised dogs minor injuries are an inadvertent and normal side effect of play.

1. As I noted above, Dr Lindsey did not attend the Hearing and did not provide her opinions about the videos submitted in evidence.

1. Dr Lobry de Bruyn assessed Gidge and Troopa at Animal Sense Veterinary Behaviour, O'Connor on 29 July 2024.
2. Videos were taken of Dr Lobry de Bruyn's assessment. Video 20 shows a meet and greet with Mr Hunter, Gidge and Troopa and Dr Lobry de Bruyn. Videos 15-19 and 21-23 are the videos taken of Gidge and Troopa during Dr Lobry de Bruyn's assessment. Those videos show either Gidge or Troopa or Gidge and Troopa with Mr Hunter and another dog, Toby, with Toby's handler. Gidge, Troopa and Toby are walked on a leash at all times. Gidge and Troopa wear muzzles initially but then they are walked without muzzles. The assessment with the three dogs was undertaken in a car park area (other than the meet and greet which took place in a room at the premises).
3. In her undated report, which was lodged with the Tribunal on 30 July 2024,[119] Dr Lobry de Bruyn gave the following opinion:

I found both dogs to be sociable and appropriate.

Neither dog showed any level of dangerousness when asked to walk past and then interact more closely with an unknown brown Labrador (Toby), who was being handled by one of my professional dog trainers, Kat Mancini.

Neither dog has before met the trainer or the stooge dog, Toby.

Both dogs first met Toby on lead whilst muzzled, and later walking together, and then finally without muzzles. At no time did [Mr Hunter's] dogs indicate they felt threatened or would threaten Toby. They remained claim and could walk past and parallel with, without issues.

At no time did either dog show a level of concerning behaviour that would warrant a declaration of being dangerous.

It is my opinion that neither dog warrant the label or a 'declared dangerous dog' and the revoking of this declaration would be a sensible and appropriate action for the council to make.

It is my opinion that Mr Hunter is a responsible dog owner and would ensure that his dogs are well controlled and responsibly cared for whilst in public.

I assessed the dogs in my clinical space at Animal Sense Veterinary Behaviour, O'Connor, and was able to conduct a full and thorough assessment of their ability to be calm and responsive around an unfamiliar dog, as well as meeting myself and my trainer for the first time.

1. At the Hearing, Dr Lobry de Bruyn gave evidence that:

(a) she did not consider Mr Hunter's dogs as a threat to other dogs in the general populace;[120]

(b) she did not assess Gidge and Troopa for predation during her assessment because she was looking for any signs that the dogs were reactive, fearful or aggressive;[121]

(c) although both dogs show interest in other dogs they do not engage in predatory behaviour;[122]

(d) she agreed that Gidge and Troopa showed intense interest in Boondi and that there was an element of predation in the behaviour of Gidge and Troopa during Ms Lord's assessment[123] and that Video 2 shows the beginning of a predatory motor sequence;[124]

(e) Ms Lord was overreading the dogs' behaviour because dogs do chase other dogs in play and do not go on to injure them and a dog which is engaged in a predatory motor sequence cannot be recalled;[125]

(f) she could not say with absolute certainty that Troopa is not a threat to other dogs in an uncontrolled environment because of what other dogs do, how many dogs there are and what else is happening;[126] and

(g) Troopa is more dominant over Gidge in terms of leading, but she did not know whether Gidge would be more likely to engage in aggressive or predatory behaviour if Troopa engaged in that behaviour first because Gidge is not as interested in social engagement as Troopa.[127]

1. Dr Lobry de Bruyn said that her videos (namely Videos 15 - 22) show that Gidge and Troopa are completely safe being walked down a street without muzzles on.[128]
2. Dr Lobry de Bruyn said that Video 2 and Video 3 showed that Gidge and Troopa are absolutely able to associate with the neighbour's small dog without concern.[129] She said that there was intense interest in the neighbour's dog but they did not look like they were going to injure the neighbour's dog.[130] She did not see the muzzle-punch but if contact was made then it means that 'we're going further along the sequence'.[131]
3. Dr Lobry de Bruyn said that dogs do injure each other all the time at the dog park and that dog squabbles should not end up in dogs being declared dangerous as this was a misuse.[132]
4. Dr Lobry de Bruyn criticised Ms Lord's assessment because the dogs used were not the same as those involved in the First and Second Incidents and because of the fence line which she said skewed the assessment.[133]

1. Ms Lord carried out an assessment of Gidge and Troopa on 1 October 2024 at the City of South Perth Animal Care Facility, Como.
2. Video 24 shows a meet and greet with Mr Hunter, Ms Hunter, Gidge and Troopa and Ms Lord. Video 25 shows Gidge and Troopa with the Hunters and Ms Lord and her dog Boondie. Video 26 shows Gidge and Troopa with the Hunters and Ms Lord with her dog Maggie. Video 26 shows Gidge and Troopa with the Hunters and Ms Lord's dog, Denny. Video 27 shows Gidge and Troopa with the Hunters and Ms Lord with all three of her dogs. Gidge and Troopa are off leash and unmuzzled at all times during the assessment. The assessment with the dogs was undertaken in two dog yards with a fence in between with the Hunters, Gidge and Troopa on one side of the fence and Ms Lord with her dogs on the other side of the fence (other than the meet and greet).
3. In her report dated 3 October 2024[134] Ms Lord stated:

Assessment Part 1-Owner control of dogs with non-dog distractions. The reason for this portion of the assessment is to establish a control baseline.

Distractions were human, toy and food.

Outcome-Mr Hunter has good control over both dogs. Mr Hunter was not overly willing to accept my observations regarding the stress levels of both dogs.

...

Assessment Part 2-Dog meets

Dog 1-Boondie- an 18-month-old, ME Chihuahua X

On initial sighting both Trooper and Gidget immediately moved quickly towards (charged) the fence line and focused intensely on Boondie. Both Gidget and Troopers body language was still and Troopers hackles (hair on neck/back/rump) was raised.

Although Gidget's intensity reduced as she became familiar with Boondie, Trooper's did not. Troper continued to maintain high arousal and intense focus on Boondie. Neither dog displayed any social behaviour towards the assessor dog.

Outcome-Although Mr Hunter was able to call both dogs away from Boondie, the behaviour displayed by both dogs appeared predatory.

How quickly both dogs aroused and charged the fence, combined with the intense focus, duration of intense focus, and lack of social behaviour is concerning as it has potential to cause significant injury, be it with a heavy paw or placement on the back of a dog, or a continuation of the predatory motor sequence (PMS): orient, eye, stalk, chase, grab/bite, kill/bite, dissect, consume.

Trooper's focus and intensity was far higher than Gidget's.

...

Dog 2-Maggie-8-year-old, FS, Labradoodle

Again, on initial meeting both dogs immediately aroused and moved quickly to the fence line, at which point assessor dog Maggie barked at both dogs as a form of distance increasing behaviour.

Both Trooper and Gidget appeared to correctly interpret assessor dog Maggie's distance increasing signals and both dogs quickly lost interest in the assessor dog Maggie.

Outcome-Although both Gidget and Trooper initially aroused and again charged the fence, both dogs appeared to read the assessor dogs signals well, quickly lost interest in the assessor dog and responded to her appropriately. This is likely to be because Maggie is extremely clear with her signals, and she is also a slower moving dog, which does not trigger predatory behaviour,

...

Dog 3-Denny-4-year-old, ME
Again, both dogs moved quickly towards the fence line, however only Trooper appeared confident enough to continue to engage with assessor dog Denny. Initially both assessor dog Denny and Trooper displayed pilo/erection (hackles up), however this is considered within normal range for 2 male dogs meeting in such an abrupt manner.

Gidget appeared initially quite fearful of Denny. When I asked Mr Hunter to move Gidget away from Trooper and close to assessor dog Denny, Gidget refused to come away from Trooper and to Mr Hunter. At this stage Gidget offered some appeasement to assessor dog Denny (play bows). I made mention of Gidget's worry to Mr Hunter, as well as discuss my observation that Gidget is very reliant on Trooper.

Gidget did offer a small amount of soft play type behaviour during the assessment; however, Trooper remained quite stiff and did not offer any soft/social type behaviour.

During the play component of the assessment, both Trooper and Gidget's arousal escalated. When this arousal heightened Gidget began to focus on Trooper, then began mouthing his collar, however Trooper remained very focused on Denny,

Outcome-Again, although Gidget and Trooper initially aroused and moved towards the fence, Gidget quickly disengaged, where Trooper continued to engage. Trooper appeared very stimulated by assessor dog Denny's movement, whereas Gidget was stimulated by only Trooper's movement and reaction to Denny. Trooper is extremely stimulated by movement.

...

All 3 assessor dogs

Trooper and Gidget were presented with all 3 assessor dogs.

Although clearly fatigued, Trooper intermittently continued to be stimulated by the assessor dogs movement, and when stimulated he continued the intense focus on assessor dog Boondie.

As in the initial assessment with Boondie, when focusing on Boondie, Troopers' body was stiff, and his focus was intense. During this intense focus Trooper began dripping saliva (drooling), This salivation was not due to fatigue, lack of water, etc. The saliva was dripping to the ground from both sides of Troopers mouth and only during times of intense focus on assessor dogs Denny and Boondie.

Outcome-Although fatigued, Trooper continued to display predatory behaviour. This becomes more unpredictable, as one moment he appeared relaxed and at ease with the assessor dogs, then without warning he would again display predatory behaviour. Due to unpredictability and his level of predation, it was deemed unsafe to progress to a meet with all dogs without the protection of the fence line.

...

Assessment findings:

- Neither Gidget nor Trooper displayed behaviour that I would consider to be social.

...

- Both dogs displayed predatory behaviour towards assessor dog 1 Boondie, however Trooper's level of arousal and intensity was far higher than Gidget's.

- Even when fatigued Trooper continue [sic] to be stimulated by Boondie and Denny's movement.

- Although Mr Hunter does have good control over both dogs, the intensity and speed in which the dogs react when stimulated may not allow time for the behaviour to be interrupted by Mr Hunter.

- I am concerned that Mr Hunter does not correctly identify and interpret either dogs behaviour (see the warning signs), and therefore may not prevent a negative interaction from occurring.

- Although Gidget displayed predatory behaviour, the intensity of her behaviour is far lower than Troopers.

- Gidget's behaviour appeared to be heavily influenced by Troopers behaviour. Mr Hunter was unable to call Gidget away from Trooper and to him during the assessment with dog 3, Denny

- Gidget is far more responsive than Trooper to Mr Hunters cues; both verbal and body language.

- Gidget checks in with and responds to Mr Hunter far more regularly than Trooper. When calling both dogs Mr Hunter rarely needs to call Gidget as she follows Trooper.

- Trooper is extremely motivated by movement and displayed a very high level of predatory behaviour, even when fatigued.

- Trooper was less responsive to Mr Hunter in comparison to Gidget.

- Trooper's behaviour was at time throughout the assessment, unpredictable; he appeared to be fatigued and relaxed, then would re-orientate and predate on assessor dog Boondie.

Summary

During the assessment, both Trooper and Gidget displayed predatory behaviour. This behaviour has a strong genetic component; different breeds and breed mixes have been selected to perform different parts of the sequence.

Although Gidget and Trooper are siblings, it is common to see varying levels of a behaviour within a litter, or siblings, especially as they mature; the dog may become 'better' at the behaviour, or not. For example, although all Kelpies are bred to herd stock, some may not be motivated to do so, whereas others would work themselves to death if they could.

In the case of Gidget and Trooper, Trooper displays an extremely high level of predation, whereas Gidget's level (intensity) was far lower, and she responded promptly to Mr Hunters cues.

Trooper is extremely movement stimulated and loves the "thrill of the chase". This can be seen in the assessment with dog 1 Boondie and, when the excitement levels escalated, with dog 3 Denny.

In addition, Trooper was eager and ready to offer the predatory behaviour, even when extremely fatigued. In the final portion of the assessment his predatory behaviour escalated to include salivation.

Without the fence line separating the dogs it is likely Trooper would have continued the predatory motor sequence (PMS); orient, eye, stalk, chase, grab/bite, kill/bite, dissect, consume.

As this behaviour (predation) has a strong genetic component and is extremely self-rewarding, it is resistant to behavioural modification and needs ongoing management, to include restricting access to triggers. In the case of Trooper, as shown in the assessment, these triggers appear to be animal moving quickly (Dog 1 and 3), smaller dog (Dog 1).

Trooper:

I would not feel safe having Trooper around my small dog Boondie in any situation for fear of potentially catastrophic injury.

I would not feel safe having Trooper around my Kelpie Denny if excitement levels were raised for fear of injury.

I would feel safe having my Labradoodle Maggie around Trooper, as her behaviour is predictably calm.

Gidget:

I would feel comfortable having Boondie around Gidget in a calm environment, once both dogs were familiar, and without Trooper present to influence her behaviour.

I would feel comfortable having Gidget around both my Labradoodle Maggie and my Kelpie Denny.

I do not consider Gidget's behaviour to be dangerous, as the level of predation is far lower than Troopers and appears to be heavily influenced by Trooper, however ongoing management should be implemented when around small or fast moving animals.

Although Mr Hunter has good control over Gidget and Trooper, I am concerned that Mr Hunter does not interpret either dogs behaviour correctly, which therefore increases the risk to other dogs.

1. During the Hearing, Ms Lord gave evidence about the predatory motor sequence: orientation, eye, stalk, chase, grab and bite.[135] Ms Lord said that the predatory motor sequence is stimulated by a trigger and often the trigger is fast movement.[136] Ms Lord also said that predation is distance-decreasing behaviour whereas aggression is distance-increasing behaviour.[137] Ms Lord added that the predatory motor sequence in working dogs may be demonstrated by their focus, the intensity and the lack of social behaviour.[138]
2. Ms Lord was of the view that during her assessment of Gidge and Troopa they were midway through the predatory motor sequence because of their focus and intensity and lack of social behaviour.[139] She also gave evidence that Gidge and Troopa strongly lacked sociability or social behaviour, particularly Troopa, and that Troopa did not want to play.[140] Ms Lord was also of the opinion that if Troopa was to engage in predatory behaviour that Gidge would follow or join in.[141] Ms Lord was of the opinion that the behaviour displayed by Gidge and Troopa is a continuation of the behaviour from the First and Second Incidents.[142]
3. Ms Lord's evidence at the Hearing was consistent with the report of her assessment.[143] However, after viewing Videos 2 and 3 in evidence during the Hearing, Ms Lord was of the opinion that both Trooper and Gidge displayed a predatory motor sequence with the neighbour's dog and that the situation did not escalate because the neighbour's dog was elderly and slow and did not trigger them further in the predatory motor sequence.[144] Ms Lord gave evidence that Gidge 'muzzle-punched' the neighbour's dog when Gidge made contact with the neighbour's dog's back and that the neighbour's dog was scared because it backed itself up against the wall and then moved away.[145]
4. Ms Lord said that she was 'extremely fearful' when she saw Videos 2 and 3[146] and, when asked to describe the impact of those videos on her responded:[147]

I was holding my breath through those videos, expecting there to be some damage to that dog, because against, they showed a minimum of the first four portions of the predatory motor sequence, and you can see both of them flanking and covering the sides of those dogs, which is very normal for predatory dogs working together.

1. During the Hearing, Ms Lord maintained her evidence that: Troopa is absolutely dangerous; Troopa and Gidge are predatory; Gidge is predatory to a lesser degree than Troopa; Gidge follows Troopa; Troopa cannot be with trusted with other dogs; and Gidge cannot be trusted with other dogs when Troopa is around.[148] Ms Lord also maintained her evidence that neither Gidge nor Troopa are social.[149]
2. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter played Video 14 to Ms Lord. Video 14 shows Gidge and a black and white dog. Gidge is seen nipping the face of the black and white dog. After viewing Video 14, Ms Lord said that her concerns were increased about Gidge because Gidge was nipping the other dog and was the instigator rather than the follower.[150] Ms Lord rejected Mr Hunter's suggestion that the nipping was 'playful nipping' and said the nipping was concerning where Troopa is lying down and showing the first part of the predatory motor sequence.[151]
3. Ms Lord criticised Dr Lobry de Bruyn's assessment because Toby was a calm dog, the use of leads impacts behaviour because the owner can manipulate the dogs and muzzles diffuse behaviour.[152]
4. Mr Hunter asked the experts why Gidge and Troopa have not looked, chased, attacked, eaten and destroyed twice a day every day for their whole life.[153] Ms Lord responded that when dogs are growing up, they are refining their skills and you will see the lower level signals such as orient and eye. However, as they develop and mature through adolescence, they develop the other skills as well which might then include the stalk and the chase and once they hit adulthood that is when those skills are refined and they will then have the ability to do the whole sequence up to the level that that specific breed is bred to do. Ms Lord is of the opinion that Gidge and Troopa have not engaged in the behaviour because they have not been able to practise or rehearse the behaviour because of the restrictions imposed by the dangerous dog declarations.[154] Dr Lobry de Bruyn responded that the dogs had not engaged in the behaviour because they are not predatory.[155]
5. Gidge and Troopa must be muzzled and leashed when out in public. Accordingly, none of the experts were able to fully replicate the conditions in which the First Incident and Second Incident took place (that is, when the dogs were off-lead and unmuzzled at a dog beach and at a dog park with other dogs' present). However, I find that the assessment carried out by Ms Lord came closest to replicating the circumstances of the First and Second Incidents than the assessment of De Lobry de Bruyn and Dr Lindsey having regard to the inherent difficulties of carrying out such an assessment with dogs which are the subject of a dangerous dog declaration. This is because Ms Lord's assessment involved three dogs of different sizes, gender and temperaments Boondie, Maggie and Denny), and Mr Hunter's dogs were off leash and unmuzzled throughout the assessment. By way of contrast, Dr Lobry de Bruyn's assessment involved one calm dog (Toby) and Mr Hunter's dogs were not off leash although in some of the videos they were unmuzzled. Although it can be inferred that Gidge and Troopa were muzzled and leashed during Dr Lindsey's assessment because they were walked through community space, it not clear from Dr Lindsey's report whether other dogs were involved in the assessment. Further, and in any event, neither Dr Lobry de Bruyn nor Dr Lindsey assessed Gidge or Troopa dogs for predation.
6. I prefer the evidence of Ms Lord to the evidence of Mr Hunter, Dr Lindsey and Dr Lobry de Bruyn in respect of the risks posed by Gidge and Troopa.
7. I prefer the evidence of Ms Lord to the evidence of Mr Hunter because Ms Lord is an expert in animal behaviour whereas Mr Hunter, although he has owned dogs for many years, is not.
8. I prefer the evidence of Ms Lord to the evidence of Dr Lindsey for the following reasons. First, Dr Lindsey did not give evidence at the Hearing and so was not able to be cross-examined by the City about her report. Second, as I have found above, the assessment carried out by Ms Lord more closely replicated the circumstances which gave rise to the First Incident and Second Incident than the assessment carried out by Dr Lindsey. Third, even though Dr Lindsey had access to a copy of the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, Dr Lindsey's opinion is based on incorrect factual assumptions, contrary to the findings in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, that there is no behavioural evidence to support an act of attack in either case and the injuries to the other dogs were superficial. Fourth, although Dr Lindsey's opinion addressed whether or not Gidge and Troopa posed a risk to any person (which is not in issue in this matter), it is not clear whether she thought Gidge and Troopa posed a risk to other animals because, although Dr Lindsey said that she 'had not been able to identify any behavioural signs or risk that would indicate that either dog would engage in an unprovoked attack, she did not specify whether she meant an unprovoked attack on a human or another animal. Fifth, Dr Lindsey's assessment was undertaken to assess the dogs' response to novelty rather than whether or not they may engage in the same or similar behaviour to the behaviour in the First Incident and Second Incident.
9. I prefer the evidence of Ms Lord to the evidence of Dr Lobry de Bruyn for the following reasons. First, Ms Lord had read the background materials provided to her about the First and Second Incidents[156] whereas Dr Lobry de Bruyn admitted that she had not read all of the background materials before doing her assessment or before giving evidence at the Hearing and relied on information from Mr Hunter.[157] Second, Dr Lobry de Bruyn's opinions are based on incorrect factual assumptions, contrary to the findings in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, that the incidents involved an approach or squabble not an attack, that Gidge and Troopa were provoked and the injuries sustained by the other dogs were minor.[158] Third, Ms Lord assessed the dogs for predation during her assessment whereas Dr Lobry de Bruyn did not.[159] Fourth, I have found the assessment carried out by Ms Lord more closely replicated the circumstances which gave rise to the First Incident and Second Incident than the assessment carried out by Dr Lobry de Bruyn. Fifth, unlike Ms Lord, Dr Lobry de Bruyn did not accept that Gidge made contact with the neighbour's dog when such contact was apparent on Video 2.[160] Sixth, Dr Lobry de Bruyn repeatedly acted as an advocate for Mr Hunter in that she stated on more than one occasion that Gidge and Troopa should not have been made the subject of dangerous dog declarations and that the dangerous dog declarations should be revoked and that Mr Hunter had done all he needed to do.[161]
10. Accordingly, I accept Ms Lord's evidence and find that Gidge and Troopa pose a risk to other dogs because they are not social and engage in predatory behaviour towards other dogs and that their behaviour is a continuation of the behaviour seen in the First Incident and Second Incident. I also find, based on the expert evidence, that if Gidge and Troopa were to be exercised off leash in a public place there is a risk that they will engage in predatory behaviour towards another dog and, if they did, there is a low chance of recalling them, which means that they may chase or attack another dog and cause injury.

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence that he has had dogs for 34 years and that he has had mainly Staffies and or Staffy crosses.[162] Mr Hunter's evidence was not in dispute and I find that he has been a dog owner for 34 years. I have found that Mr Hunter is the owner of Gidge and Troopa.[163]

Mr Hunter's insight into the dogs' behaviour which led to the making of the dangerous dog declarations

1. In documentary evidence before the Tribunal and during the Hearing, Mr Hunter vacillated between acceptance or denial of the attacks[164] and repeatedly blaming the other dogs involved in the First Incident and the Second Incident and their owners for what transpired by claiming that his dogs were provoked and reacted to the actions of the other dogs and their owners.[165] Mr Hunter also refused to accept that the injuries had occurred, or were anything other than minor, or that the injuries were caused by his dogs.[166] At one stage, Mr Hunter referred to the First Incident and Second Incident as 'these two ridiculously minor incidents'.[167] Mr Hunter did not accept that the Tribunal in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision had found that his dogs had attacked the other dogs.[168]
2. The criminal proceedings commenced against Mr Hunter arising out of the First Incident and Second Incident had not been to trial as at the date of the Hearing. This no doubts explains Mr Hunter's reluctance to accept the findings of the Tribunal in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision.
3. However, nonetheless, I find that Mr Hunter's attempts to deny the First and Second Incidents, to dismiss the injuries sustained by the other dogs as 'minor', and his attempts to shift blame onto the other dogs and dog owners involved are clearly indicative of a lack of insight on his part into the behaviour of his dogs which led to the making of the dangerous dog declarations.
4. In the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, the Tribunal found that Mr Hunter's dogs attacked the other dogs without provocation. The injuries sustained by the other dogs were not all superficial injuries as is evident from the veterinary reports. The First and Second Incidents must have been a very traumatic experience for the other dogs, their owners and other persons present.

Mr Hunter's insight into, and understanding of, his dogs' behaviour more generally

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence that he is a 'good judge of his dogs'.[169]
2. At the Hearing, Ms Lord gave evidence that Mr Hunter 'displayed an absolute concerning lack of understanding of his dogs' behaviour', had a poor level of insight[170] and that he did not want to listen to what she was telling him about his dogs' body language and was quite argumentative.[171]
3. Ms Lord said that Mr Hunter had 'a very different view' to the behaviour that his dogs were exhibiting compared to her.[172] Ms Lord thought that Mr Hunter needed to do a lot of work developing an understanding because to make his dogs safe around other dogs you must have an extremely high level of understanding and management of the dogs.[173] She added:[174]

To manage dogs, you need to be able to correctly interpret their behaviour. Especially - there have been multiple times that he has turned around and said that they just wanted to play, whereas none of the behaviour is play. So if behaviour is not correctly interpreted, it leads to the dogs becoming more dangerous because being put in opportunities or in situations where they're more likely to make a mistake and cause injury.

1. Dr Lobry de Bruyn gave evidence that Mr Hunter is 'open to advice and following the advice of the people that have been advised to give him advice' including herself and Dr Lindsey.[175] Dr Lobry de Bruyn also said that she thought Mr Hunter was not listening to Ms Lord's advice because it feels hypercritical to him and because Ms Lord had set herself up as an adversary.[176]
2. During the assessment of Troopa and Gidge by Ms Lord, Ms Lord told Mr Hunter that 'part of the assessment is for me to be able to let you know what I'm seeing from a behavioural perspective'.[177] On a number of occasions, Ms Lord commented on her interpretation of the dogs' behaviour. However, Mr Hunter was openly dismissive of Ms Lord's views. Further, during the Hearing, referred to Ms Lord's evidence as 'rubbish'.[178]
3. It is clear from Mr Hunter's behaviour at the assessment by Ms Lord and during the Hearing that Mr Hunter was not willing to listen to Ms Lord's opinions about his dogs' behaviour. Given that Mr Hunter had repeatedly asked the City to have an expert of their choosing carry out an assessment of his dogs, I find that it is concerning that he chose not to engage with Ms Lord by, for example, asking her questions about her views (even if he disagreed) or seeking advice about what he could do to address the behaviour that was of concern to Ms Lord rather than dismissing her views out of hand. Alternatively, Mr Hunter could have sought another expert opinion.
4. I find that Ms Hunter has little insight into, and understanding of, his dogs' behaviour more generally. I prefer the evidence of Ms Lord to the evidence of Dr Lobry de Bruyn in respect of Mr Hunter's insight into and understanding of his dogs' behaviour. This is because Ms Lord's opinion is supported by Mr Hunter's dismissal of her views during Ms Lord's assessment and during the Hearing.

Measures taken by Mr Hunter in response to the behaviour which gave rise to the making of the dangerous dog declarations

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence about the measures that he had taken following the dog attacks.
2. First, Troopa was desexed (with Chaz) after the First Incident when he was 10 months old.[179] Mr Hunter's understanding was that having the dogs desexed would make it easier to control the dogs since they would have less testosterone going through the dogs.[180]
3. Second, I have found that Gidge and Troopa have undergone additional training since the First and Second incidents.[181] Mr Hunter gave evidence that they had continued to use the methods that they had been taught because the dog training is not so much training the dogs, but training the people how to train the dogs.[182] I also find that Mr Hunter has continued to use those methods to reinforce the training.
4. Third, Ms Hunter moved out of Mr Hunter's house with her two dogs, Chaz and Hunter. Mr Hunter gave evidence that his daughter moved out of his house within a week or two of the City declaring the dogs dangerous although his daughter was planning to move out anyway.[183]
5. Fourth, Mr Hunter gave evidence that whilst he takes Gidge and Troopa over to his daughter's place every week or two for a play date with his daughter's dogs, they do not go out together with the dogs.[184]
6. Mr Hunter's evidence was not in dispute and I find that he has taken some measures in response to the First Incident and Second Incident as outlined above.
7. However, given that the Second Incident took place after Troopa was desexed, I find that having Troopa desexed did not prevent the Second Incident. Further, as outlined above, both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord agreed that sterilisation would not impact behaviour.

Mr Hunter's compliance with the Dog Act and Dog Regulations (including the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations)

1. The restrictions imposed by the dangerous dog declarations relate to the wearing of collars, muzzles and leashes, the display of a warning sign at the premises where a dangerous dog is ordinarily kept or permitted to live and the enclosure at those premises. Non-compliance with those requirements may constitute a criminal offence under the Dog Act.[185]
2. During the Hearing I asked Mr Hunter about the measures he has to take under the dangerous dog declarations. Mr Hunter gave evidence about the collars, requirement to be leashed, the muzzles and the enclosure.[186] On the basis of Mr Hunter's evidence, which is not in dispute, I find that Mr Hunter is aware of his obligations under the Dog Act in relation to the dangerous dog declarations and, as I have found below, initially engaged with the City to ensure that he understood his obligations so that he could comply with them.
3. Mr Hunter gave evidence that he had complied with the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations in respect of Gidge and Troopa.[187]
4. The City did not contend that Mr Hunter had contravened the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations relating to the wearing of collars, muzzles or leashes or the display of a warning sign.
5. There are a number of videos which show Gidge and Troopa muzzled and leashed when being exercised by Mr Hunter in dog parks.[188] Both Gidge and Troopa were muzzled and leashed when they attended the assessments by Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord (although during those assessments their muzzles and/or leashes were removed).[189] Accordingly, there is evidence that Gidge and Troopa have been leashed and muzzled in public places.
6. However, in Video 1 Gidge is initially shown muzzled and leashed playing with a black and brown dog which is off leash in a dog park. The black and tan dog then removes Gidge's muzzle within a matter of seconds. I find that the removal of Gidge's muzzle by the black and brown dog meant that Gidge was unmuzzled in a public place.
7. Non-compliance with the muzzle requirement of the dangerous dog declaration is a contravention of s 33GA(6) of the Dog Act.
8. During cross-examination of Mr Hunter, it was put to him by Mr Beckett that Mr Hunter had contravened the Dog Act by taking his dogs to other premises (including his neighbours).[190] Mr Hunter did not accept that he was in breach of the requirements of the dangerous dog declaration by taking his dogs to other premises or that those other premises did not comply with the enclosure requirement of the Dog Act.[191] No evidence was led by the City that those other premises did not meet the enclosure requirements for a dangerous dog under the Dog Act. Accordingly, I find that there is no evidence that Mr Hunter was in contravention s 33GA(2) of the Dog Act in respect of the enclosure requirements of the dangerous dog declaration.
9. On the basis of the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, which was not in dispute, I find that:

(a) on 31 October 2024 Mr Andrew Fletcher of the City of Joondalup sent an email to Mr Hunter[192] which said:

Dear Mr Hunter

I would like to follow up from our conversation earlier today 31st October 2024 at 1330 hours, as requested I am emailing you the information.

We note that you have failed to facilitate an inspection of your property for this year, which is a requirement for owners of dangerous dogs. These annual inspections typically occur prior to the renewal of registrations for dogs, which is required by 1 November each year.

Can you please contact the city to arrange an inspection of your property within 7 days of the date of this correspondence. Failure to do so may result in breaches of the Dog Act 1976, which may result in formal enforcement action being taken by the City.

We look forward to receiving your response.

Kind regards,

Andrew Fletcher

(b) on 8 November 2024, Mr Hunter sent an email to Mr Fletcher[193] which said:

1. City of Joondalup failed to follow due processing declaration of dangerous dog.
2. City of Joondalup failed to do inspection since November 2022.
3. City of Joondalup failed to accept review of dangerous dog declarations at least 3 times, as I am entitled to.

There are many other failures by the City of Joondalup.

If you feel there is a risk, stand out the front of my property (do not enter the property) and see if they can get out.

I am waiting on requested information.

Will be in touch in due course.

Have a good day.

1. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter gave evidence that his dogs were registered.[194] When it was put to Mr Hunter that his dogs had not been registered after 31 October 2024 because he had not permitted the City to inspect his property, Mr Hunter did not realise that his dogs were not registered and said that he had not received any renewal of registration forms and only read the email in relation to the inspection.[195] On the basis of the documentary evidence referred to in paragraph [163] and Mr Hunter's evidence, I find that at the time of the Hearing, Gidge and Troopa were not registered.
2. Under the Dog Act, the registration of a dangerous dog has effect from the date specified in the registration certificate until the next 31 October unless cancelled sooner.[196] If a dog is not registered, then the owner of the dog commits an offence.[197]
3. Whilst I accept that the owner of a dangerous dog is required to contain their dog in an enclosure and that an authorised person has the power to enter any premises, other than a dwelling, in the exercise of power under s 12A(4) of the Dog Act for the purpose of ascertaining whether an offence against Pt VI Div 2 is being committed (including an offence contrary to s 33GA(2) of the Dog Act), there is nothing in the dangerous dog declaration itself, the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations which expressly requires the owners of dangerous dogs to facilitate an annual inspection of their property. However, it is clear that a refusal by the owner of a dangerous dog to allow an annual inspection of their property may result in a local government refusing to renew the registration of a dog under s 16(3) of the Dog Act because they cannot be satisfied that the dog is, or will be, effectively confined in or at premises where the dog is, or will be, ordinarily kept.
4. Although Mr Hunter sought a s 11 certificate because he was concerned that some of the videos he had taken of Gidge and Troopa might be construed as contravening the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations, Mr Hunter did not tender those videos in evidence so it was not possible for the Tribunal to form a view whether or not Mr Hunter has acted in contravention of the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations or the Dog Act in respect of the content of those videos.
5. Accordingly, I find that Mr Hunter has not complied with the requirements of the Dog Act in respect of the wearing of a muzzle by Gidge in a public place on one occasion (when her muzzle was removed by another dog) and in respect of the registration of Gidge and Troopa.

Mr Hunter's proposals for future keeping of Gidge and Troopa

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence that if the dangerous dog declarations are revoked he will reintroduce Gidge and Troopa to normal walking and exercising.[198] He said that he would take them to further training to slowly reintroduce and socialise them and have them trained and assessed with group dog training.[199] He says that he is 90% confident that he could take them to the park and control them.[200] Mr Hunter also said that he would take his dogs to the beach or park and let them off leash if he assessed that it was safe to do so.[201] On the basis of Mr Hunter's evidence, I find that Mr Hunter intends to let his dogs exercise off leash in public places if he considers that it is safe to do so.
2. Ms Lord told Mr Hunter during her assessment that neither Gidge nor Troopa should be taken to a dog park because they are not dog social.[202] She also gave evidence that the dogs should not be let off leash in public because 'they are highly likely going to chase another dog and hunt it down.[203] Ms Lord also said that you have to micromanage Gidge and Troopa to make sure they do not make a mistake.[204]
3. Dr Lobry de Bruyn said that it was important to make sure that Gidge and Troopa are 'kept in controlled and familiar situations'.[205]
4. I find that Mr Hunter's future plans to exercise Gidge and Troopa off-lead in public places is contrary to the advice of both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord.
5. Further, given that I have found that Gidge and Troopa engage in predatory behaviour, it would be contrary to the advice of both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord to let them off leash.

1. At the time of the First Incident and shortly thereafter, concerns were raised that Mr Hunter had difficulty controlling the four dogs when they were being walked together.[206] In an extract from an Incident Report of the City dated 14 November 2022[207] it is stated:

9 November ... Andrew Hunter with 4 Rottweiler X heading into Charonia Park. Dogs were visibly uncontrolled, with leads tangled and Andrew visibly struggling to physically handle them ... Andrew admitted to having difficulty with controlling and managing the dogs. During this discussion, the dogs were over aroused, with increased levels of eye stalking and had no spatial awareness. They were able to be safely managed with the presentation of food, though FO 170 and FO 184 reported the dogs growling at them when they approached.

1. Mr Hunter accepted at the Hearing that at the time of the First Incident he did not have anyone with him to help control the four dogs and that he could not control the dogs.[208]
2. At the Hearing, Mr Hunter gave evidence that 'I have full control of my dogs everywhere, any time'.[209] He said that he has 'got more control of my dogs now than I did when they were10 months old'.[210]
3. Dr Lobry de Bruyn is of the opinion that Mr Hunter has adequate control of his dogs.[211] She is of the view that Mr Hunter 'would ensure that his dogs are well-controlled and responsibly cared for whilst in public'.[212]
4. Ms Lord gave evidence to the effect that when dogs which engage in predatory behaviour are in a less controlled environment, you have to be hypervigilant all of the time, effectively control the dogs and micromanage them at all times to make sure they do not make a mistake.[213] Ms Lord said that to have dogs which display this behaviour and make the dogs safe around other dogs, you must have an extremely high level of understanding and management of these dogs.[214]
5. Ms Lord gave evidence that she categorises control of dogs by an owner as poor, good and effective, with effective control meaning that the dogs respond immediately to the owner.[215] In her opinion, Mr Hunter displayed 'good control' of his dogs but he does not have the level of verbal control over Troopa and Gidge that is necessary to control them if they were off lead.[216] Ms Lord said that Gidge and Troopa did not respond promptly to verbal commands.[217]
6. I find that whilst Mr Hunter has reasonable control of Gidge and Troopa, he does not have effective control of either dog off leash. I prefer the evidence of Ms Lord to the evidence of Mr Hunter and Dr Lobry de Bruyn in respect of Mr Hunter's ability to control his dogs. This is for two reasons. First, because Ms Lord's evidence was supported by the videos of her assessment of Gidge and Troopa in which both dogs did not always immediately respond to verbal commands (including commands to sit, stay or to come) from Mr Hunter (and, on some occasions, the same command had to be given two or three times).[218] Second, because Ms Lord specifically assessed Mr Hunter's ability to control his dogs off-lead during her assessment of Gidge and Troopa whereas Dr Lobry de Bruyn did not.[219]

1. On the basis of the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, I find:

(a) in a File/Meeting note dated 9 November 2022 from the City[220] it is stated:

Following discussion with Mr Hunter on management of CHAZ, TROOPA, HUNTER and GIDGE, Mr Hunter was found to be unaccepting of the declaration and of any attempt to explain modern dog training and behaviour traits to him. Mr Hunter was uncooperative in listening to the advice and information supplied as he did not agree and therefore was unwilling to accept that reasonable and well considered expert advice and information may be offered to him. It was found that even though Mr Hunter was willing to be cooperative in taking steps to manage his yard in order to house the dogs, the current management of all four dogs has not been successful in preventing two serious incidents from occurring and the dog owners are lacking the required skill set to guarantee that substantial and profound behavioural modification would be achieved in order to prevent further incidents, without high level intervention by a suitably qualified professional.

(b) Mr Hunter attended the City to sign the dangerous dog declaration paperwork;[221]

(c) Mr Hunter agreed to the City visiting his property on 18 November 2022 (Pre-inspection) to help him prepare for the official inspection although the Pre-inspection did not occur;[222]

(d) Mr Hunter asked questions about the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations to which he received answers from the City;[223]

(e) Mr Hunter kept the City informed about Ms Hunter's new accommodation arrangements;[224] and

(f) the City acknowledged that Mr Hunter was working on the dogs' issue and indicated its appreciation that he will willing to address this;[225] and

(g) at the request of Mr Hunter, Gidge and Troopa were assessed by an animal behaviouralist of the City's choosing, namely Ms Lord.

1. However, it was apparent to me during the Hearing that Mr Hunter's relationship with the City is strained because of the seizure and detention of Gidge and Troopa in 2023, the refusal of the City to revoke the dangerous dog declarations and the City's reluctance to have Gidge and Troopa assessed by an expert. This is because Mr Hunter repeatedly criticised the City in respect of these matters. When I asked Mr Hunter whether it would be fair to say that his relationship with the City was strained, he agreed.[226] He also said that he did not trust the City.[227]
2. The strained relationship is reflected in the email communications between Mr Hunter and the City concerning the inspection of his property which are set out at paragraph [163]. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter complained that the City had not inspected his property but then conceded that the City had tried to inspect his property, that the City had requested to inspect his property, that he had not arranged with the City to do an inspection and that he did not want the City coming onto his property because of their previous actions.[228]
3. On the basis of the documentary evidence, which is not in dispute, I find that Mr Hunter did initially engage with the City to ensure that he properly understood the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations and that his property was ready for the official dangerous dog compliance inspection on 21 November 2022 (2022 Compliance Inspection). Further, I have found that Mr Hunter did take measures in response to the First Incident and Second Incident.[229] However, based on the evidence given at the Hearing by Mr Hunter and the email chain between Mr Hunter and the City,[230] I find that the relationship between Mr Hunter and the City is now so strained that it has resulted in a situation where Gidge and Troopa are not registered because Mr Hunter will not allow the City to inspect the enclosure for compliance with the requirements of the dangerous dog declarations. I consider that Mr Hunter's relationship with the City is now strained to the point that I do not consider that Mr Hunter will do anything to co-operate with the City.

Any other matters relating to responsible dog ownership

1. During the Hearing, Mr Hunter was questioned about the Second Incident and, in particular, whether he had told Ms Hunter that she should not take the dogs off leash in a public place having regard to the First Incident. Mr Hunter said that they had talked about it and agreed that 'we're going to have to take more care about ... how we exercise the dogs'.[231] He added that it was not up to him to tell Ms Hunter 'how to do it' or to follow her.[232] Mr Hunter was asked whether he would have taken the same dogs to the same park and let them off leash at that time and he replied 'Yes'.[233] Mr Hunter did not agree that there was any reason to do things differently after the First Incident.[234]
2. Mr Hunter gave evidence that Videos 2 and 3 were taken in his neighbour's garden and that his neighbour's dog was 16-years-old and blind and has since passed.[235]
3. In Video 2 Troopa and Gidge are in a garden-there is a grassed area up high and a paved area more than a metre below. The neighbour's dog is a small white dog and is located in the paved area. Troopa and Gidge are up on the grassed area at the start of the video and watch the small dog intently. Gidge and Troopa jump down onto the paved area. Gidge makes contact with the back of the small dog. The small dog appears startled. Troopa and Gidge then jump back up onto the grassed area. Troopa and Gidge then jump down and follow the small dog around the corner. The small dog moves very slowly. There are no persons visible in the video.
4. Video 3 is a continuation of Video 2. Gidge and Troopa are shown near the small dog. One sniffs the rear of the small dog.
5. Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord took different views of Gidge and Troopa's behaviour in Videos 2 and 3. It would be fair to say that Ms Lord was horrified by what she saw.
6. When he was under cross-examination, Mr Hunter was asked about the videos he had taken which caused Ms Lord concern. Mr Hunter was asked whether he was surprised by her reactions and he responded 'Yes'.[236] Mr Hunter was asked whether he observed anything that was of concern to him and he responded 'No'.[237] He added his dogs did not show any aggression and that it was not a dangerous situation.
7. In my view, irrespective of the views of the experts, Mr Hunter showed a complete lack of judgment in releasing Gidge and Troopa in his neighbour's garden with his neighbour's dog. The neighbour's dog was small, 16-years-old and blind and completely at the mercy of the much larger dogs. Gidge made contact with the back of the neighbour's dog in what Ms Lord described as a 'muzzle-punch'. The neighbour's dog was clearly scared and no one was in a position to physically intervene to protect the neighbour's dog should the situation escalate.
8. I find that Mr Hunter is prepared to take risks with Gidge and Troopa and that those risks are evident in his failure to advise Ms Hunter to take precautions after the First Incident and in the incident involving the neighbour's dog which is shown in Videos 2 and 3.

1. Mr Hunter gave evidence that he takes his dogs out most days for a walk of at least 15 minutes duration.[238] He said that the dogs are very restricted because of their leads and muzzles.[239] However, Mr Hunter has complained that Gidge and Troopa do not like being muzzled in public.
2. In an email dated 5 August 2024 Mr Hunter asked Dr Lobry de Bruyn for her opinion on whether having the dogs restricted the way they are is, and/or has been, detrimental to their social development, and how well they have developed with such restrictions. In an email of the same date, Dr Lobry de Bruyn responded as follows:

Wearing a muzzle when not conditioned to do so is stressful, and it appears stressful for Gidget in particular.

So that is a negative for her.

Of course not being able to socialise freely may negatively impact on a dog's joy in life, but they also seek social support from humans and have each other so they are not without social lives. lf they are well socialised in the sensitive period then they likely will remain social beings although all animals, including humans, can decrease in their social circle as they age and not everyone has the same desire to be social to begin with. Just like humans there is a variety in the normal sociability.

Hope that helps ...

1. A dog which is the subject of a dangerous dog declaration is required to be muzzled at all times in any public place to prevent the dog from biting a person or animal.[240] Accordingly, the fact that a dog the subject of a dangerous dog declaration does not like being muzzled is not relevant to whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that the dog can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations.

Mr Hunter's concerns about the processes followed by the City of Joondalup

1. In Hunter v City of Joondalup, His Honour the Chief Justice observed that:[241]

...it is apparent that the appellants' focus in challenging the declarations made by the City was, and to an extent still is, focussed on what they contended were failures by the City in the process it adopted prior to making the declarations on 9 November 2022: for example, that the City had acted on the basis of hearsay or an incomplete investigation or that the City was biased.

1. During the Hearing before me, Mr Hunter again repeatedly referred to those alleged failings. Mr Hunter was also critical of the City's decision to seize his dogs in September 2023 following a complaint that the dogs had been involved in a dog attack.
2. During the Hearing, the Tribunal repeatedly pointed out to Mr Hunter that it was not the task of the Tribunal to review the processes of the City leading up to the making of the dangerous dog declaration. Nor is it the task of the Tribunal to decide whether or not the dogs should have been seized by the City in September 2023. Accordingly, Mr Hunter's concern about the processes involved in the making of the dangerous dog declarations and the seizure of his dogs is not relevant to whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that the dogs can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations.

Can the Tribunal be satisfied that Gidge and Troopa will be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations?

1. I am not satisfied that Gidge and Troopa can be kept without contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations. This is for the following reasons:

(a) in the Tribunal's 2023 Oral Reasons for Decision, the Tribunal found that Gidge and Troopa were involved in dog attacks in the First Incident and Second Incident and both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord agree and I have found that their involvement in those dog attacks make it more likely that that there will be an attack in the future;[242]

(b) although I found that Gidge and Troopa have not been involved in any other incidents since the making of the dangerous dog declarations, I also found they have had very little opportunity to engage in further incidents because they have to be muzzled and on a leash in public[243] and otherwise contained in an enclosure and this is evident in the videos provided to the Tribunal by Mr Hunter;[244]

(c) I have found that Gidge and Troopa pose a risk to other dogs because they are not social dogs and engage in predatory behaviour which is a continuation of their behaviour in the First Incident and Second Incident;[245]

(d) notwithstanding that Gidge and Troopa have received additional training, both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord agree and I have found that predatory dogs are resistant to behaviour modification;[246]

(e) I have found that if Gidge and Troopa were to be exercised off leash in a public place there is a risk that they will engage in predatory behaviour towards another dog and, if they do, there is a low chance of recalling them, which means that they may chase or attack another dog and cause injury;[247]

(f) I have found the risk that Gidge and Troopa pose to other dogs is elevated by their large size, herding breed and genetics;[248]

(g) the risk that Gidge and Troopa pose to other dogs is elevated because I have found that Mr Hunter has no insight into the conduct of his dogs which gave rise to the making of the dangerous dog declarations against them;[249]

(f) the risk that Gidge and Troopa pose to other dogs is elevated because, although Mr Hunter clearly loves his dogs, I have found that Mr Hunter has little insight into the behaviour of his dogs more generally and a concerning lack of understanding of his dogs' behaviour because what he sees as play is not, according to Ms Lord, always play;[250]

(g) I have found that if the dangerous dog declarations are revoked, Mr Hunter intends to exercise Gidge and Troopa off leash in public places when he considers it safe to do so contrary to the advice of both Dr Lobry de Bruyn and Ms Lord;[251]

(h) the risk that Gidge and Troopa pose to other dogs is elevated because I have found that Mr Hunter does not have effective control of Gidge and Troopa when they are off leash since his dogs do not always immediately comply with his commands;[252]

(i) the risk that Gidge and Troopa pose to other dogs is elevated because I have found that Mr Hunter is prepared to take risks with Gidge and Troopa and that those risks are evident in his failure to advise Ms Hunter to take precautions after the First Incident and in the incident involving the neighbour's dog which is shown in Videos 2 and 3; [253]

(j) I have found that another dog was able to remove Gidge's muzzle when she was being exercised by Mr Hunter as shown in Video 1 which is contrary to the Dog Act;[254]

(k) I have found that Mr Hunter's refusal to allow the City to inspect his premises to ensure compliance with the requirement of the dangerous dog declaration resulted in his dogs being unregistered at the time of the Hearing which is contrary to the Dog Act;[255]

(l) although I have found that although Mr Hunter was originally willing to engage with the City, Mr Hunter's relationship with the City is now strained to the point that I do not consider that Mr Hunter will do anything to co-operate with the City;[256]

(m) if a dog attacks or chases any animal, with or without causing physical injury to that animal, then every person liable for the control of the dog commits an offence contrary to s 33D(1) or s 33D(2) of the Dog Act; and

(n) if a dog is in a dog exercise area and the person liable for control of the dog is not capable of controlling the dog, then every person liable for control of the dog commits an offence contrary to s 32(1) of the Dog Act.

1. Since I am not satisfied that Gidge and Troopa can be kept without contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations, I cannot revoke the dangerous dog declarations.

1. For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Gidge and Troopa can be kept without the likelihood of any contravention of the Dog Act or the Dog Regulations. Accordingly, the correct and preferable decision is that the City's decision to refuse to revoke the dangerous dog declarations in respect of Gidge and Troopa is affirmed and Mr Hunter's application is dismissed.

1. During the Hearing, there was some discussion about what kind of evidence was required for the purposes of a hearing in the Tribunal. Given that there are very few published decisions about dangerous dog declarations, and the task of the experts is to assist the Tribunal, I thought that it might be helpful to make some concluding observations.
2. If a dog owner is seeking to have a dangerous dog declaration revoked before the Tribunal, they will need to provide expert evidence to the Tribunal about their dog's behaviour and, specifically, whether or not their dog's behaviour poses a risk to humans or other animals. The expert evidence as to the dog's behaviour is required to assist the Tribunal to decide whether or not the Tribunal is satisfied that the dog can be kept without any contravention of the Dog Act or Dog Regulations. In particular, the Tribunal will be looking to see whether there has been a positive change in the behaviour of the dog since the behaviour which resulted in the making of the dangerous dog declaration.
3. In Lee v The State of Western Australia [2025] WASCA 32 at [162] - [163] Archer JA, with whom Buss P and Vaughan JA agreed, said:

To assess the weight to be given to an expert report, a court must know the facts on which it is based. To be of any weight, an expert opinion must be based on facts that are established by the evidence or on assumed facts that are 'sufficiently like' the established facts. The expert's reasoning process must be fully exposed.

A court is not obliged to uncritically adopt the opinion of an expert even if the opinion is unchallenged (noting that the State challenged the expert evidence in this case). The court is entitled to have regard to the expertise of the expert, the questions involved in the opinion and the reasoning underpinning the opinion. The court is also entitled to weigh the opinion against other evidence in the case. Other evidence of facts and circumstances may displace or throw doubt on the expert evidence. (Footnotes omitted)

1. When an expert in animal behaviour is asked to assess a dog's behaviour for the purposes of proceedings in the Tribunal, they must be provided with all of the information about the dog necessary to form an opinion (including information about the grounds upon which the dangerous dog declaration was made and any relevant Tribunal findings on review). This information forms the factual basis on which the expert's opinion will be based together with any assessments carried out by the expert.
2. Any expert engaged by a dog owner or the local government must be made aware of their obligations to the Tribunal. Those obligations are:

(a) an overriding duty to assist the Tribunal impartially on matters relevant to their area of expertise;

(b) a paramount duty to the Tribunal and not to the party who engaged them; and

(c) a responsibility to convey their expert opinion to the Tribunal and not to act as an advocate for the party who engaged them.[257]

1. A local government may, before dealing with an application to revoke a dangerous dog declaration, require the owner and the dog to attend a course in behaviour and training approved by the local government, or otherwise to demonstrate a change in the behaviour of the dog.[258] Although the local government has a discretion, rather than an obligation, to exercise this power, the making of a requirement under s 33H(2) of the Dog Act would assist a dog owner in knowing what they need to do to demonstrate a change in the behaviour of their dog.[259] This is because the local government, as a body charged with the enforcement of the Dog Act, is arguably in a better position than the dog owner to know what steps will need to be taken to demonstrate a positive change in the dog's behaviour.

1. The respondent's decision on 21 May 2024 to dismiss the applicant's application to revoke the dangerous dog declarations made on 9 November 2022 in respect of Gidge and Troopa is affirmed.
2. The applicant's application is dismissed.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal.

[1] These are the names of the dogs which appear in the dangerous dog declarations. However, Gidge and Troopa are also referred to as 'Gidget' and 'Trooper' in some of the other materials before the Tribunal.

[2] Dog Act, s 33E.

[3] No behaviour has been prescribed in the Dog Regulations 2013 (WA) (Dog Regulations).

[4] Dog Act, s 33J.

[5] Dog Act, s 33H(1). See also paragraphs [53] - [61].

[6] Dog Act, s 33H(3).

[7] Dog Act, s 33H(5).

[8] Dog Act, s 33H(5)(a) and s 33I and SAT Act, s 17.

[10] Killen v Commissioner of Police [2014] WASC 427 [42] - [43].

[13] Polizzi v Commissioner of Police [No.2] [2017] WASC 166 [67].

[14] SAT Act, s 29(3) and Dog Act, s 33I.

[15] See O'Donnell v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCAT 112 [100]; Dalgliesh v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 34 [109].

[16] Dog Act, s 33GA.

[17] The email chain is set out in full at paragraph [169].

[18] The videos are described at paragraph [45].

[19] The videos are described at paragraph [46].

[20] The videos are described at paragraph [47].

[25] Evidence Act, s 3.

[26] ts 88, 24 October 2024. See also s 32(2) of the SAT Act which says that the Evidence Act does not apply to Tribunal proceedings.

[28] Applicant's Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions filed on 8 September 2024 (Exhibit 1 at pages 59 - 61) and Respondent's Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions filed on 22 August 2024 (Exhibit 1 at pages 221 - 227).

[37] Hunter v City of Joondalup [2024] WASC 148 (Hunter v City of Joondalup) (Exhibit 1 at pages 188 - 202).

[48] JD Heydon, Cross on Evidence, 13th edition at 29045 and 29060.

[55] For ease of reference, those videos are identified as Exhibit 4.

[56] For ease of reference the videos on the USB Stick are identified as Exhibit 5.

[57] Dog Act, s 33H(4).

[58] Dog Act, s 33H(5) and s 33I(1)(a)(ii).

[60] Porter v Cook [1971] 1 NSWLR 318 at page 319.

[61] Interpretation Act, s 3(1).

[62] Interpretation Act, s 9.

[63] Interpretation Act, s 46(1) and (1a).

[64] Dog Act, s 32(2).

[65] The term 'person liable for the control of the dog' is defined in s 3(1) of the Dog Act to mean, relevantly for present purposes, the registered owner of the dog, the owner of the dog and a person who has the dog in his possession or under his control.

[66] Dog Act, Part VI.

[67] See also Keatings and Town of Victoria Park [2008] WASAT 205 [33]; Ioppolo and City of Wanneroo [2013] WASAT 172 [54]; Melanie and City of Kwinana [2020] WASAT 32 [84].

[68] See, for example, O'Donnell v Brisbane City Council [2024] QCAT 112 [107]; Willis v Hume City Council [2013] VCAT 1033 [39]; and Phillips v Whitehorse City Council [2019] VCAT 762 [9].

[75] Exhibit 1 at page 159; ts 49, 30 January 2025.

[81] Exhibit 1 at pages 96 - 101 and 113 - 119.

[84] ts 24, 51 and 128, 24 October 2024.

[99] ts 107, 24 October 2024; ts 59, 19 December 2024.

[100] ts 114 and 121, 30 January 2025.

[111] ts 27 and 128 - 129, 24 October 2024.

[125] ts 40, 59, 84 - 85, 105, 24 October 2024.

[133] ts 59, 69, 84 - 85, 24 October 2024.

[136] ts 75 - 76 and 95, 24 October 2024; ts 11 and 14, 19 December 2024.

[143] ts 25 - 39, 49 - 51, 132 - 134, 24 October 2024.

[152] Exhibit 1 at pages 235 - 243; ts 24 and 84 - 85.

[156] ts 48, 13 - 14, 17, 111 - 113 and 118, 24 October 2024.

[158] ts 71 - 77, 110 - 115, 24 October 2024.

[159] ts 58 and 116 - 117, 24 October 2024.

[161] Exhibit 1 at page 42; ts 41, 48, 68 and 109, 24 October 2024.

[164] ts 12 and 23 - 24, 32 - 38, 30 January 2025.

[165] Exhibit 1 at pages 31, 34, 106, 151 - 152, 157 - 158; ts 19, 24 October 2024; ts 32 - 47, ts 55, 30 January 2025,

[166] Exhibit 1 at pages 30; ts 24, 33 and ts 44 - 47, 30 January 2025.

[185] Dog Act, s 33GA.

[189] Videos 15 - 25 inclusive; ts 5, 19 December 2024.

[196] Dog Act, s 15(3A).

[197] Dog Act, s 7(1).

[201] ts 82, 86 - 87, 30 January 2025.

[206] Exhibit 1 at pages 91, 93, 104, 108, 136 - 137, 139 - 140; 178.

[216] Exhibit 1 at page 235 and 243; ts 24, 24 October 2024.

[217] Exhibit 1 at page 242; ts 19 - 22, 19 December 2024.

[223] Exhibit 1 at pages 144 - 145 and 153 - 155.

[226] ts 107 and 109, 30 January 2025.

[235] ts 92, 24 October 2024; ts 14 - 16, 30 January 2025.

[240] Dog Act, s 33GA(6).

[241] Hunter v City of Joondalup [34].

[242] At paragraphs [77], [78] and [104(a)].

[251] At paragraphs [172] - [173].

[254] At paragraphs [160] and [168].

[257] Guide to Giving Expert Evidence Info Sheet 11, State Administrative Tribunal; and State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 39A.

[258] Dog Act, s 33H(2).

[259] See the comments in Hunter v City of Joondalup [64].