The applicant submitted that he had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the Control Order, including ensuring that his dog was prevented from escaping by being held in a secure backyard. He told the Tribunal that he was unable to comply with the training aspect of the Control Order due to cost. He requested an extension of time for the Tribunal to hear his application to review the Control Order as he did not fully understand the order at the time it was issued. In relation to the Prohibition Order, the applicant disputed that his dog was responsible for the second incident resulting in the issue of the order.

The respondent submitted that the issue of the orders were the correct and preferable decisions and should be affirmed; in the alternative, the respondent submitted that the period of the Prohibition Order may be reduced. The respondent submitted that the legislative requirements for the issue of the orders were satisfied, including that at the time of the second incident the applicant was non-compliant with the conditions of the Control Order. The respondent opposed an extension of time being granted to the applicant on the basis that no special circumstances existed.

• It is not appropriate to extend time to challenge the Dangerous Dog Order as the Tribunal is not satisfied that there are special circumstances to justify the extension. The Order was the correct and preferable decision in any event;
• The Tribunal finds that the decision of the Council to issue the Prohibition Order was the correct and preferable decision.

Administrative Review - Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA) - Review a decision of a council or Board to issue a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order - Dangerous

Administrative Review - Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (SA) - Review a decision of a council or Board to issue a Prohibition Order against a person

South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 ss 34 and 37(1)(a)

Dog & Cat Management Act 1995 ss 43, 44, 50, 51, 59A, 72 and 86

Aldridge v Whyalla City Council [2020] SACAT 13

Ash v City of Burnside (Unreported, District Court of South Australia, Master Rice 3 March 2016)

Ivka v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 5

Kerr & Parker-Benton v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 10

Wilson v City of Onkaparinga [2024] SASC 139

The applicant in person assisted by his former partner (applicant's partner)

This is an edited version of the Tribunal's decision pursuant to s 60 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. Some of the parties and participants of the proceedings have been de-identified in accordance with the Tribunal's anonymisation policy. Other facts and details that may lead to the identification of any person may have also been anonymised or omitted. These changes do not affect the Tribunal's decision or its reasons for decision.

Made under the South Australian Civil & Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 s 37(1)(a)

1. This is an application to review a decision made by the respondent on 19 September 2024 to issue a Prohibition Order (Order) pursuant to s 59A of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (the Act) in respect of the applicant's dog, "Boof Head" (Boof). The effect of the Prohibition Order is not just that the applicant is prohibited from acquiring or being responsible for the control of any dog for the period specified in the Order (five years), but also that Boof would be euthanised.
2. The respondent says it made the Order following an attack by the dog on 4 September 2024 during which a female person was rammed and bitten on her arm causing two puncture wounds which required hospital treatment.
3. A second female person was also harassed by the dog which growled at her and tried to bite her.
4. The respondent says that the decision to issue the Order was made on the basis of, having considered all the material available to it, it being satisfied that: the applicant was the owner of the dog which was the subject of a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order (Dangerous Dog Order) made following an incident in May 2024; that the dog was involved in the incidents that occurred on 4 September 2024; and that at the time of the incident, the conditions of the Dangerous Dog Order were not being complied with and that the dog was not under effective control and was not wearing either a muzzle or a Dangerous Dog Collar; and that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with the Act.
5. The Order imposed by the respondent prohibits the applicant from acquiring or becoming responsible for the control of any dog for a period of five years; requires that the applicant's male, blue and white American Staffordshire terrier known as Boof be destroyed; and requires that ownership of any other dog in the applicant's care or ownership be transferred to another person or surrendered to the respondent for assessment as to suitable rehoming.
6. The application also seeks to review the decision made by the respondent on 17 July 2024 in respect of the Dangerous Dog Order pursuant to ss 50 and 51 of the Act. The Dangerous Dog Order was, according to the respondent, made following an incident on 21 May 2024 where a female person was walking along the pavement near the applicant's premises when she was attacked by the dog, pushed against a car and bitten on her right arm, causing puncture wounds and severe bruising.
7. By letter dated 1 July 2024 the respondent invited the applicant to advance submissions in opposition to the making of a Dangerous Dog Order. No submissions were received by the respondent.
8. By letter dated 17 July 2024 the respondent imposed the Dangerous Dog Order. The letter advised of the rights of review to this Tribunal. The time for the review was 14 days. The application for review was not made until 1 December 2024.
9. The respondent's position is that the applicant has not articulated what special circumstances exist to justify an extension of time and refers to the requirements of s 72(3) of the Act.
10. The applicant does not appear to dispute that his dog was responsible for the May 2024 attack, but says the attack was not committed intentionally and did not result from a failure on his part to take reasonable care to avoid it. The respondent says that, even if that was so, it would be irrelevant to the assessment of the appropriateness of the imposition of a Dangerous Dog Order.
11. The respondent says that the issues for determination by the tribunal are as follows:

(1) First, has it been established to the requisite standard that the dog was responsible for the attacks on 4 September 2024.

(2) Second, if the answer to that question is affirmative, then is the imposition of the Dangerous Dog Order the correct and preferable decision?

1. The Tribunal heard oral evidence from the applicant; the applicant's former partner; the applicant's son; and three neighbours.
2. The Tribunal also received bundles of documents, including witness statements, affidavits, transcripts of interview, photographs, correspondence, videos, and written submissions from both parties. The Tribunal has had regard to all the material before it.

1. The applicant is the owner of Boof, an American Staffordshire Cross.
2. There are a number of pictures of Boof.
3. Boof is described as being a 'blue and white' or 'grey and white' dog, though from the pictures he appears to be brown and white. I find that the perception of colour is dependent on the light and involves some subjectivity.
4. The applicant has resided at a number of rental properties.
5. One of the properties, where there was the alleged attack of 4 September and the earlier attack of 21 May 2024, was in a location where the applicant said there were three areas where he could lock up outside - the backyard, the garage, and the front yard.
6. On that property the front fence malfunctioned on a number of occasions where it would automatically open without the applicant's knowledge. He therefore disconnected the motor for the automatic fence at one stage and would manually open it and close it.

1. There is video footage of Boof being tethered to a post of a rental property of the applicant's girlfriend, out the front. As the postman approaches, Boof easily gets free of the tether and attacks the postman.
2. The applicant said the postman was bitten 'in retaliation' because the postman stuck his shoe out and that as the postman was kicking the dog the dog put his tooth through his shoe.
3. He was asked whether the video shows the dog attack when the postman did not come at the dog. The applicant said 'yes but he was in bright clothing and a big man. He looks like a threat'. He said Boof was just 'defending the property' and that 'if he wanted to harm someone he would. That was just a warning'. He said that the postman had a fluorescent shirt and helmet and 'looked weird'. His dog would therefore see that as a threat.
4. The applicant said his dog 'acted like any dog would to get rid of the situation'.
5. He was shown photographs of the injuries. His response was that although 'it has gone through the shoe' (meaning the teeth), 'it is not a bite', just 'teeth marks' or a 'puncture', and 'I get scars like that all the time'.
6. He said Boof was 'protecting his family and doing his job'. He said it was just a warning to go away.
7. The photos show a puncture wound to the foot (with blood). The video shows that the postman was then in some discomfort when trying to keep on with his mail delivery.
8. The applicant said that if he does not see the incidents, he does not believe them, and that this is why he finds this all so hard.
9. He said that Boof was nice to the family but if someone comes onto the property 'he notices things' and 'if he doesn't like something he acts up'.
10. He was asked whether from September 2022 he would agree that Boof had the potential to attack people and responded, 'not attack, he protects'. With respect, that shows something of a lack of insight.
11. I have watched the video. I do not agree that the postman was doing anything to provoke the attack. The dog charges at the postman as the postman is delivering the mail. The postman does raise his leg after the dog charged at him, but this is defensive on the part of the postman. The dog charged at the postman when the postman's back was turned. It jumps on him, grabbing at his arm, and then grabs at his leg. There was no kick by the postman that leads to an attack - the attack is from the dog without any provocation at all.
12. The attempt to justify the attack raises a concern about whether the applicant takes his responsibility as the owner of a dangerous dog seriously.
13. The Council's investigation notes of the incident record that there was a camera attached to the Australia Post delivery vehicle. Those notes record that the victim had gotten off the vehicle, heard a barking coming towards him, the dog lunged at him, he attempted to fend the dog off with his forearm that was unsuccessful. He put out his left foot to fend the dog off and was bitten through the shoe. The partner of the applicant came and restrained the dog. The victim was treated with antibiotics and a tetanus shot. The applicant's partner was interviewed and explained that Boof was tethered near the front door whilst work was being done inside. The dog belonged to the applicant and she had him whilst the applicant was absent. No training was provided to Boof other than through the applicant.
14. The notes record that the dog was unregistered, was displaying territorial aggression. They say that the applicant's partner committed to ensuring that the dog was not allowed out of the front of the property.
15. The notes record that in November Boof was still unregistered.
16. The postman provided a written statement, consistent with the notes of the Council.
17. The Council interviewed the applicant's partner.
18. A transcript was prepared.
19. According to the transcript, the applicant's partner said the reason for non-registration had to do with the applicant's mum losing paperwork. She said Boof was one year old. She was asked if the dog was desexed. She said no. The Council officer said legally he had to be desexed. She responded that the applicant was 'going to kick her butt' because it was 'all [her]fault' and it was so unfair. She said she saw the incident. She said the postman was just stepping backwards, and Boof was barking at him with paws on him. She agreed it wasn't friendly. She said Boof was a loving dog but very protective. She said the dog would sometimes be at the applicant's house but if he had an appointment or something then his partner might look after him if the applicant's mum couldn't. She said again that the applicant was going to kick her butt for what had happened. She said she told the applicant what happened and that he was upset that she had let Boof out the front. She said she would not let him out the front anymore, and that she would learn from this incident. She said the dog would be 99% of the time at the applicant's house.

1. The applicant says that he has viewed the CCTV footage of the incident, but the footage belongs to his brother and his brother will not let him have the footage. He says his brother 'has issues'. He says the footage shows Mr T 'scoping the front yard'.
2. He was asked whether the footage showing Mr T being attacked. The applicant said it shows Mr T 'being withheld' and the dog then called off. He called it a 'takedown'. The applicant said that Mr T was known in the community as being someone up to no good and someone who hangs out with the wrong people. He said if Boof had wanted to attack 'he would have done a lot worse', and Boof was 'just stopping someone from coming on to my property'.
3. The applicant said he could not report Mr T trespassing on the property to police. He said Mr T 'got what he deserved'.
4. He said the dog saw a threat and got rid of the threat.
5. He said the Council officer told him Boof needed training. The applicant said that training was expensive. He said he has trained Boof himself.
6. The applicant said that his view of the first two incidents was that Boof was just defending his property. (Even if that view could potentially be justified on the second incident, it is not a view that can be justified with respect to the first).
7. Photos were provided of the wound to Mr T's arm.
8. The doctor's report describes it has a wound of 5mm x 3mm in size and 4mm deep surrounded by smaller lacerations.
9. Mr T was treated with antibiotics.
10. Mr T did not give evidence at the Tribunal. The Council records of the incident show that Mr T said that the dog ran 30 metres towards him and bit him on the arm. Mr T told the Council that he was walking on the street when the dog ran from the property and latched on his arm. A female called the dog back. The records show that the applicant's partner was asked to attend an interview but initially did not do so, and wanted to do a statutory declaration instead because of her brain injury. The Council notes say that the applicant told Council that he had not given his partner permission to take Boof (though this was not the effect of the applicant's oral evidence), and that Boof was just being protective and was not a vicious dog. The Council officer recommended a Control (Menacing Dog) Order with a training element to be included, on the basis that this was the second attack involving Boof and the dog was still unregistered.
11. Mr T provided a witness statement that said he was walking along the road, towards the beach going for a doctor's appointment. He was 30 meters away from the relevant house and a dog ran from the property towards him. It ran directly for him without barking. He turned away, and the dog grabbed his arm biting it. A lady ran out of the house who he now knows as the applicant's partner and applied a tea towel, and said that the dog had been left outside whilst she popped back in to get something. The applicant's partner said that the dog had bitten a postie a while ago and the applicant was going to be in trouble. She offered to give Mr T a lift, but he said no. Mr T went to the doctors the following day.
12. The applicant's partner was interviewed on 17 March 2023. According to the record of interview, she said that Boof belonged to the applicant, and was not desexed or registered. She was not aware of any training for Boof. She said she was packing the car and expected Boof to be next to her, and when she turned around she saw a gentlemen standing in the front yard near a caravan. She saw the dog go towards him and then the gentleman said the dog had bitten him. She said she secured Boof, and then tended to the man's wounds. She thought the wounds 'looked deeper than they were' and were really 'superficial'. She said the attack was her fault because she didn't have permission to put Boof in the car and that the applicant was blaming her for what happened. She said Boof was 'loveable'. She disagreed that the attack involved being 30 metres away from the property and said Mr T was on the property. She said people had been on the property in the past acting suspiciously.
13. The applicant was interviewed about the incident. According to the record of interview he said Boof was a 'male big dopey shit'. He agreed he was not desexed or registered. He said he was an American Bully which is a Staffordshire Cross. He said that Boof had become very protective of the yard because people had tried to break in recently, and because there were shady characters, security cameras had been put in. The applicant said he was at work at the time of the attack. The Council officer stated that the victim said he was 30 metres away from the property. The applicant said his understanding was that the victim was hanging around the caravan at the front of his house. He said that Boof is not aggressive when the applicant is around but maybe when he is away Boof thinks he is the boss. The applicant said Boof is a 'stubborn shit'. The applicant said that he has purchased a body harness for the dog and had ordered a muzzle. The Council officer reminded him of the need to register and desex the dog. Presumably referring to his partner he said 'we have talked about this, yeah she has copped crap and I'm sorry but my Mrs copped a lot of shit after I heard what happened. Man do I apologise for it? No because I told her if I say he stays then he stays. He's my dog.'

1. On 9 February 2023 the Council sent a letter to the applicant advising that it intended to make a Control (Nuisance Dog) Order and invited submissions to be made by the applicant if he opposed to the making of that Order. No submissions were provided.
2. On 3 March 2023, the Council issued the respondent with a Control (Nuisance Dog) Order under s 56 of the Act based on the incident from September 2022. The Order required Boof to be kept inside, for the premises to be fenced, for all reasonable steps to be taken to prevent future attacks and for the dog to be on a leash when outside the property. It did not require training.

1. On 13 September 2023, the Council issued a Notice of Revocation of Control (Nuisance Dog) Order, and advised that it would send a letter of intention to make a Control (Menacing Dog) Order. The notice was given referring to the attack of September 2022 and 30 January 2023. A notice of intention to make a Control (Menacing Dog) Order was given on the same date and the Order itself was made, after no submissions were received, on 23 October 2023.
2. The Order required: the dog to be kept inside or for the premises to be fenced; the wearing of a collar; the dog, when off the premises to be muzzled and under effective control by means of physical restraint; and for an approved training course to be commenced within 30 days of the Order. The training was to include muzzle training, desensitisations, environmental enrichment, behaviour adjustment training, dog body training and foundation behaviours. It also provided that all reasonable steps be taken to prevent the dog repeating the behaviour that gave rise to the Order.
3. The applicant did not arrange for the training to be commenced within 30 days or at all.

1. On 21 May 2024, the Council received notification that a dog wearing a winter jacket and described as a terrier or Staffy of grey black and white colour was involved in an attack. The complainant said the dog ran out from its property, pushed the victim against a car, and bit her arm.
2. There are medical records showring a dog bite/scratch with four puncture wounds and bruising including a medical report and photos.
3. There is CCTV footage of the lead up to the May incident.
4. It shows Boof out the front of the property.
5. He is wearing a light coat. He looks to me like he is brown in the footage, though one might also say grey-brown.
6. Boof can be seen running from the front yard through the open gate after a lady walks past. He chases after the lady. The actual attack is not shown.
7. The applicant said the gate malfunctioned which was why it was open.
8. The Council accepts this explanation and there is video of the gate opening by itself when a Council inspector is present.
9. The applicant says that the lady looks like the applicant's mum. He said that Boof ran out because Boof thought it was the applicant's mother.
10. He was shown the photographs of the injuries.
11. He said 'they are just scratch marks', and the lady 'was on blood thinners'. He said the photos show injuries that could be from nails or claws, and his mum gets those injuries all the time. He said its 'easy to mark with such a heavy dog'.
12. He said he didn't feel that Boof had done anything wrong. Again, that demonstrates a lack of insight.
13. Following that incident he received a Dangerous Dog Order.
14. The applicant said that following the incident it was too expensive to do the training course. He says he needs money to run the household and look after the kids, and that is expensive. He said the course would be $700. He says the Council should help people with the training courses. He thought the Council was going to help him. He felt that he did not receive help from the Council. He says he could afford it now.
15. He said he does not think that Boof actually needs training as when he is with the applicant he does what he asks.
16. The victim was not called to give evidence. Her witness statement says that on 21 May 2024, she left her house to walk down the street to post a letter. She walked past the applicant's home. There was a dog in the driveway. It had a light winter coat. The dog was white and black/grey and very stocky. She kept walking. There was a silver car on the road. She sensed the dog running. There was no barking or growling. She started to scream. She turned her back. The dog launched at her and pushed her against the car and bit her on the back of her arm. She was terrified. She said she had a heart condition. She couldn't identify the dog.
17. Given the CCTV footage shows Boof run out of the property to follow the lady and her evidence that the dog came out from the applicant's property, I find that Boof was the dog that attacked her.
18. The applicant was interviewed by the Council and a recording of the interview taken. The applicant said that Boof was registered, and although not desexed he asserted that he had a breeder's licence. He said Boof was not trained because he could not afford it as it was $500 to $700 a lesson. He said he was at work. He said there was CCTV footage and that Boof got out because the gate malfunctioned. He said he has now repaired the gate by himself and disconnects it at night. He said Boof was now kept out back. He said there was another incident, not reported where people had tried to deliver parcels through the locked gate by pushing through and Boof had observed the person but not hurt him. He said that he told the landlord that if the dog gets out, he was going to lose it as he's on a Menacing Dog Order and he doesn't want to lose his mate and mental health companion.
19. In the interview he said kids up the road torment Boof as they go past.
20. He mentioned numerous times in the interview that Boof roams around out the front and said he was a 'guard dog' and would not go looking for trouble unless provoked.
21. He said in the interview that Boof was now kept in the backyard for his own safety and that he has made sure this is now drilled into everyone in the house. He said he had welded the gate shut. He said Boof stays out the back until he gets home, but on this occasion the side gate which was welded shut, he got out.
22. During the interview he was told by Council staff that Boof needed to be desexed whether breeding or not because the dog would be upgraded to Dangerous Dog. The applicant said that was OK if he was going to keep his boy. The Council described that this would be the 'lucky last chance' for Boof.
23. The applicant said words to the effect in the interview, what about if people in his house do not 'abide by my fucking rules when I leave', and the Council officer asked him as to whether there were any 'weak links'. He said, 'not my fucking Mrs, I just finished saying, I just finished saying with [partner],' 'she's just dumb and clutsy'. He said she was asleep when this happened 'and yeah but [partner]'s got mental health issues you fuck head'. He said that he is firm and 'if they haven't headed my warning, they will...it tells me that people don't give a shit about my feeling or my dog... and if that is the case I don't want them and they can fuck off...Sorry mind my language'.
24. According to the record of interview he then asked what would happen if people jumped the fence because he has customers' cars in there and a lot of money in it. He said, 'I started off nice, but if I have to keep repeating myself. And that goes for [partner], it will see you later bye. Because she is the reason for the postie and the second offence'. He said the mother of the puppies, Sadie, was not registered because he was going through financial issues. He was asked by the Council officer what he was going to do to ensure it doesn't happen and said, 'shoot my kids and leave the dog out back'.
25. An expiation notice was issued in relation to the incident.

1. On 1 July 2024, the Council issued a notice of intention to make a Dangerous Dog Order, and on 17 July 2024, no submissions having been made, made a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order. The Order required: desexing within 30 days; collaring; muzzling when out of the premises; dangerous dog signs; training to be done within 30 days and completed within 120 days.
2. A handwritten sign was later put up on the applicant's fence, saying 'Warning, Dog Will Bite, Stop, Do Not Enter, Not Responsible for Injury' with a handwritten drawing of an angry dog. Another handwritten sign said 'Warning, Beware of Dog, Dog Will Bite, Do Not Enter Without Permission or Owner Present, For Deliveries Call [mobile number]'. There was also a more traditional printed sign saying 'Beware of Dog'.
3. Later photos emailed to the Tribunal after the hearing show compliant signs put up.

1. The applicant says that on the morning of this incident the dog was locked behind the rear gates when he left, and when he returned the dog was still locked up behind the rear gates.
2. He said no-one else would have been able to let Boof out.
3. He says he has made clear that no-one is to let Boof out. He says there has been 'domestic violence' so that it is well understood.
4. He said they, (he and his partner), ceased to be in a relationship over the dog.
5. He said, 'don't touch my dog, I expect my dog not to be touched, no one listens, and I had to get my point across'.
6. He said she wouldn't have disobeyed him after that.
7. He said he had left the front gate open for a delivery.
8. He said he had explained that to his son and girlfriend the night before.
9. He said he received a call from his son whilst at work and then went home.
10. He said he couldn't remember getting a call from the Council officer.
11. There is a transcript of the conversation with the Council officer. He was asked about the transcript. He told the Tribunal he had three puppies on the day, but the transcript says he told the Council he had six puppies. He said that his girlfriend had come to his workplace and was standing next to him when the Council called. He was asked whether he told the Council officer that he didn't know where his partner was. He said that she had come to the workplace to drop a customer's car off to work.
12. When he returned, he checked Boof and could see that there were no signs that he had bitten anyone. He says that he knows when Boof has done something wrong, and Boof was happy to see him. He agreed that the puppies had gotten out. He said in cross examination that the back door was unlocked, and the puppies were not at the front. He disagreed with the suggestion that his partner could have let Boof back inside. He said they had had a fight about Boof and that when he says 'don't touch my dog' she knows to listen. Later in cross-examination he said the back was locked. He agreed that when he was asked by a Council officer whether there were any 'weak links' that he said that '[his partner]' was the weak link, and that she was a 'klutz'.
13. The applicant said that there was CCTV footage of the incident. However, he accidentally destroyed it when he pulled out the hard drive, which made a noise and fried the data. He said he took it to a technician, but the data could not be recovered.
14. He said that Boof had a red and yellow dog collar. He also sometimes wears a 'nanny jacket'.
15. He said the dog that attacked on 4 September can't have been his dog.
16. He says the collar is a different colour than described by the witnesses.
17. He says the witnesses refer to a brown dog. He would not describe his dog as brown.
18. He says he has issues with the neighbours as he is a loud person. He suggests the neighbours are making things up to get back at him.
19. He was asked if he accepted that Boof was dangerous. He said 'If anyone was to approach my property, yes, I do. That is why I am now, I am still building a cage out the back'.
20. He said that desexing would reduce the dog's aggression.
21. He said Boof is not a pet, but a family member.
22. The Council file also includes a record of interview with the applicant of 4 September 2024.
23. According to the record of interview the applicant said there were six puppies. Sadie was the mother. Boof was the father. Sadie belonged to one of his sons, Christopher. He said he knew nothing about how the dogs got out. He said he had not spoken to his partner at all (but then said 'she just said INAUDIBLE'). He said he was aware of the Dangerous Dog Order, and was going to get Boof 'nutted'. He agreed there were no approved signs because he could not afford it, but was setting up an appointment with the Council for that to occur. He said he had got the collar and muzzle, but hasn't done the training, 'I've just been training him'. He said Boof always wears his collar.
24. The Council officer asked him for his partner's phone number. He said she did not reside at the address, that he didn't know where she was, and she had gone to Campbeltown.

1. The applicant's partner gave evidence.
2. She said that there were five puppies.
3. She said that she woke up on 4 September 2024 when the applicant was leaving work. She had to take a car to his work. She said she took the puppies out to the back and secured them.
4. She said she got a call at 9:00 and had to drop off some pants to the applicant. She said that Boof was out the back with two puppies. When she went to leave, she noticed the front gate was open and there were some puppies out the front so she took them back to the back. She picked one up and called the other. She said she saw a lady crouching behind a car. She didn't see any big dog.
5. She said the puppies must have gotten out through a gap in the fence, but the gap would be too small for even Boof's head to fit.
6. She said she couldn't remember if the front gate was open.
7. She said she had a brain injury and her memory was dicey.
8. She couldn't recall where she put the puppies. The front door might have been open. She said she couldn't recall whether Boof was inside the house. She didn't remember bringing him inside.
9. She disagreed that Boof could have followed her out. She was asked whether she went out the back. She said before the phone call but not after. She was asked if Boof followed her inside. She said she could not remember. She 'potentially' agreed that she was going inside and outside the house. She disagreed that he could have gotten out the front.
10. The applicant's partner was interviewed by the Council on 11 September 2024.
11. The transcript of interview records indicated that she could not reveal where she lived, and was in emergency housing. She said in the interview that Boof was not desexed and was not registered because she forgot to pay the account but would do so in the next few days. She said Boof had not had formal training. She said she was not with Boof at the time of the alleged attack, but was on the premises with him. She said he was out the back and locked away. She said that when she got up, she was going to take a vehicle to the applicant's work. The gate was open and there were puppies out the front. She thought it was unusual that the gate was open because the gate is always closed. She left in a silver Ford or Holden Sedan and was worried that the applicant was going to 'kick her butt'. She agreed that there were puppies out the front and the gate was open, but said Boof was not out the front. She thought that the applicant must have closed the gate when he left for work, but the gate was faulty and not functioning and that must be why it was open. She said Boof had his red and yellow collar on. She said the puppies can get out the locked gate to the back because there was a gap in it, but the gap was too small for Boof. She said there were originally eight puppies, but six left. She said that she would like to know how the gate was opened.
12. The applicant's partner also wrote to the Council after the incident and suggested that the dog involved could have been a different dog. She said that there were not six puppies and hadn't been for some time and that this therefore did not add up. She said the neighbour was causing trouble and had friends at the Council. She said if the dog was put down the family would be destroyed.

1. The applicant's son, Michael gave evidence. He said that Boof stays inside the house only when his dad is home, and only lets him in when his Dad says so. He said that the applicant's partner only lets Boof in the house when the applicant is home, or 'maybe for dinner'.
2. He said that he was in his room, and opened the door and police and Council were asking whether dogs had gotten out. He said he checked out the back and all the dogs were there. He said he checked Boofs teeth and there was no blood.
3. He said before the knock on the door he was hanging out in his room on the X-Box.
4. He said he hadn't seen the dog inside.
5. He said the puppies could earlier have gotten through the gates underneath because there was gravel, but this was fixed before the day in question so they couldn't get under, although he agreed they got out on the day in question. He said he doesn't let Boof inside the house. He said the applicant's partner might let him in to feed him and then put him back out.
6. He sent an email to the Council about the incident. He was cross-examined as to the difference between his email saying he was asleep when the Council officers arrived and his evidence that he was on the X-Box watching YouTube videos. He said he was on the X-Box and going in and out of sleep.
7. Michael said there were other dogs that live in the street. One lives in a house with a big white fence, is brown, skinny with a bit of black. It is a big dog, but skinnier than Boof. The other dog in the street is a Kelpie. He said you couldn't confuse the Kelpie with Boof but you could confuse the other dog. One of the dogs was called Axel.
8. In the email to the Council Michael said that he awoke to a loud banging. There were police officers and Council officers at the door. He said they were extremely pushy. He said that he checked Boof and there was no sign that Boof attacked anyone. He said Boof was gentle and not aggressive towards family members. He said that felt like the family was missing someone and both the dog Sadie, and the pups were distressed as well. He said Boof did not roam the streets and was not allowed out the front.

1. Ms Roberts was not called to give evidence but wrote a letter supporting the applicant. She said that there is another dog on the street that looks like Boof and relayed an incident when it was barking at her and trying to get underneath the gate of the house.

1. Christopher is the applicant's son. He was not called to give evidence but provided a written letter. He said that on 4 September 2024, he got a call from the applicant's partner saying what happened. He left for work, and when he got to his residence the dog was already in the Council van with his red and yellow collar on. He said that he felt heartbroken and said Boof was a loving and caring dog and a great companion for his father and now deceased grandfather.
2. He said that all gates are locked and closed 24/7.
3. He said Boof is not permitted out the front and only allowed out the back and inside. He said only the applicant is allowed to take Boof out of the property, and that Boof is always muzzled, harnessed and leashed when this occurs.
4. He said he was concerned for Boof's safety at the RSPCA and that the family was denied visitation rights to see him.

1. The victim, Ms Lauwes, was unwell and not available to give evidence before the Tribunal. Her witness statement states that on 4 September 2024 at about 9:15 am she awoke to banging and her dog Winston, a male Kelpie 'going off'. She asked her sister what was happening and was told that a 'pit bull' had been jumping at the door. Her sister said it was a blueish dark grey colour. She immediately thought maybe it was the neighbour's dog, Axel.
2. Ms Lauwes thought that because she knew Axel, and knew the owners were at work, that it would be a good idea to get him back into the neighbour's property so that he would not bite anyone or get hit by a car.
3. Ms Lauwes said when she was on the street she saw a dark chunky, stocky dog running towards her. Initially she thought it could be Axel. When it came closer she realised it wasn't. She said that there was a green collar that 'covered most of its neck'. The dog was muscular, dark grey with a blueish tinge, some white on its lower chest area with a small tail and a big mouth.
4. The dog then sprinted back to the house with the big electric looking gate/fence and was running out again and hovering around the house. She thought this was the dog's home. She started walking towards the house. There were six puppies running out of the property. They looked similar and looked about 5-6 months old.
5. Ms Lauwes said she turned to leave and walk back to her house. She heard footsteps on the road and a big dark coloured dog was running towards her. It rammed into her, making contact with both of her legs. She told the dog to go and get its ball or toy, hoping this would make the dog go away. The dog ran back towards its home.
6. She started speedwalking and then the dog rammed her again. She tried not to make eye contact so as not to appear threatening. The dog then latched onto her arm. She kept telling the dog to get its ball and she tried to stay calm. Someone from across the road where the dogs lived appeared. She thought this was the owner getting the dog back so she took the opportunity to go home and rinse the bite on her arm. She and her sister thought one of the dog's teeth were stuck in her arm, and was going to pull it out, but realised it was her own flesh and so wrapped her arm up, but it kept bleeding. As her mum wasn't home she called 000. An ambulance came and she spoke to SAPOL.
7. The Council file includes the Discharge Letter from the Emergency Department (ED) of Noarlunga Hospital which records a dog bite on the left forearm. The notes say 'bitten by unknown large pit bull' and refers to two 1cm puncture wounds with tissue protruding from the wounds. She was referred to 'plastics' and recommended to take simple analgesia and return to ED if certain symptoms developed.

1. Dylan Waye provided a witness statement but did not give evidence at the Tribunal. He is an authorised officer for the Council. His statement attached photographs of the bite to the victim. The photo shows a puncture wound.

1. Ms Mason provided a witness statement, affidavit, and was called to give oral evidence.
2. On 4 September she decided to do the front lawn. She got out the lawnmower and pulled bins out the front. She saw a female go back into her house.
3. She saw six puppies at the front of the applicant's property which is directly across the road. A large male dog appeared. She did not know the breed but would call it a bulldog. It came at her and went to bite her. She told the dog to stop it. The dog went back across the road, but can back and went to bite her. She saw a puppy behind her gate and the large dog reappeared and then the puppy left and the big dog left. She locked the gate and saw a lady come out of the applicant's property. The lady was tall and slim. She initially said she told the Council officer the hair was blonde, but having thought about it the hair was dark brown.
4. The lady called and chased all the dogs behind the gate at the applicant's property, and then closed it. She then left in a silver sedan (a Commodore).
5. She saw the lady again when the Council officer came to the applicant's property.
6. In oral evidence she described the dog as a brown dog, strong, with big jaws, and identified the photo of Boof as being the dog she saw. In cross examination she said the dog was dark brown. She said the dog followed the lady and puppies back into the applicant's property. In cross examination she said the dog nearly bit her. In cross examination she said she was not confusing the dog she identified (Boof) with the dog up the street. She was not familiar with all the dogs on the street. She was adamant the dog was from the applicant's property. She disagreed with the suggestion that there was any attempt to match stories together to fit the Council case, and said she saw what she saw.

1. Robert Ellard lives across the road from the applicant.
2. He provided a witness statement to the Council, affidavit to the Tribunal, and was called to give evidence.
3. On 4 September 2024 he heard a girl scream. He and his wife looked out the window and saw a girl from about two or three houses down standing next to the front fence. A dog ran down the road and attacked her.
4. The dog ran back to the applicant's house, and then turned around and charged back at her. The dog then went back home and came out with six pups.
5. He said in his statement that the dog was a big bull mastiff with a big neck and was dark brown in colour with a light colour collar.
6. In his affidavit he said the dog was brown.
7. In his oral evidence he said the dog was probably light brown. He agreed that if the dog in the attack was dark brown it would not be the dog he saw.

1. Patricia Ellard provided a witness statement, affidavit, and was called to give oral evidence.
2. She said that she was in the kitchen and her husband said that there was a dog walking on the street. She went to the window around the lounge area. She saw a girl walking East to West. She recognised the girl as living on the street but did not know her name.
3. She said she saw a dog, it looked like a bull terrier, with a very solid build, dark brown in colour with light colours as well. The dog headed for the girl, leaped towards her hands arm and bit her on the arm. The girl walked away, and the dog chased her.
4. Mrs Ellard tracked the bull terrier to the house at the applicant's house and on the driveway were five puppies. The gate was wide open. The dog then darted across the street with the pups towards the neighbouring property. There was then some yelling. When she went outside the gate at the applicant's property was closed. She identified the dog that bit the girl as being the one shown to her on a mobile phone by the Council inspector.
5. In oral evidence given over the telephone she described the dog as brown and white, looking like a Bull Terrier of medium size with a strong and muscular build. She identified the house with the sliding gate as the applicant's property. She was positive that the dogs went to the applicant's property and not the other house on the street with a Colourbond gate. She said that the gate on the other house is never closed. In cross examination she said that the girl who called the puppies out was in her 20's. She said the Council person showed her a photo of the dog that she identified. She said that was the dog that attacked the girl and she was sure of it. She did not know all the other dogs in the street, but was aware of another one that looks like a bull terrier with a similar description to Boof.

1. On 10 September 2024 the Council issued the applicant with a proposal for a destruction Order and Prohibition Order and invited submissions.
2. The proposed Order referred to the incident of 4 September 2024.
3. The Council noted the earlier Dangerous Dog Order of 17 July. At the time of the 4 September incident the dog was not on a lead. It did not have a muzzle. It was not wearing the Dangerous Dog Collar.
4. The Council noted that the dog had been involved in three other incidents, namely 6 September 2022, 30 January 2023, and 21 May 2024.
5. The Council said in the proposal that it was concerned about the risk that the dog posed to the public and did not have the confidence that the applicant could responsibly manage the dog to avoid further incidents.
6. The proposed Order would require the dog to be destroyed and prevent the applicant from owning or being responsible for another dog for five years.
7. The applicant provided a submission in response. In that submission he complained about the lack of knowledge of the incident. He said there was a failure to acknowledge his children has having an involvement in the matter. He said there was no proof of harm. He said Boof had a dangerous dog collar on, and so the dog can't have been his. He complained that the Council had taken his dog on the basis of money and referred to the decline in Boof's health whilst in care.
8. He said that Boof had been scheduled to be neutered and that he would comply with training requirements.
9. He said there was no escalation in behaviour.
10. He said that there was vitiating factors including that people had trespassed.
11. He said he would comply with all requirements for the management of the dog if the dog was returned.

1. The RSPCA provided the following information on Boof.
2. By email of 27 February 2025 from the Animal Care Manager (dogs) of the RSPCA, the RSPCA stated:

Please see below the write up from my team in relation to the concerns we are having with Boofhead currently in care. The information below is from the Animal care team that manages Boofheads care and ongoing behavioural management on a daily basis. > > Boofhead's antagonistic behaviour is continuing to escalate in our care and increasingly becoming a safety concern to staff and volunteers. He has been lunging, baring teeth and vocalising with high intensity when approached, no longer increasing his distance between aversive stimulation (people) and is now actively approaching when uncomfortable, posing a massive concern for safety. He is constantly in a state of high stress and is unable to truly settle throughout the day due to environmental stressors. His behaviour is very unpredictable, and he changes very quickly, often being soft with his interactions and then suddenly switching and becoming offensive, lunging and vocalising, no warning signs shown. > > There have been instances where he has launched himself at the kennel doors when people are present, which is concerning as he has previously damaged another kennel, and this poses a massive safety risk to our staff. Behaviour worsens after visits form his guardian, where he will become highly stressed for multiple hours after the visit, growling and lunging at the doors when staff approached and positioning himself at the back door where the guardian had left from, not moving for hours. After his first guardian visit, he destroyed the wiring of his kennel to the point that it was not safe for our staff to enter and we had to relocate him to another kennel, with much difficulty. > > Quality of life and welfare in care is concerning, despite behavioural modification work being conducted and anxiety medication on board, no improvement has been made recently and is actually regressing further in care. It is not fair on Boof's QoL and welfare to keep him in this condition due to being in a constant state of high fear, stress and anxiety. He is currently on quite a few medications which seemed to have originally helped, but he has now shown habituation to the environment. There is a high safety risk to members of the public if Boof was to be released back into the care of his guardian due to antagonistic behaviours seen in care and difficulty distinguishing any changes in behaviour prior to behaviour escalation. > > Our collective concerns for Boofhead in care are to the point we would usually consider humane euthanasia for a dog that regresses to this degree in our care and is showing this level of stress and anxiety. In addition, to the high level of safety that he poses to our staff and volunteers on a daily basis.

3. By email of 25 March 2025 information was provided from the RSPCA head veterinarian. It stated:

This dog, AID 190819 has been in care of RSPCA since the 4/9/24. This dog was bought to the RSPCA via Council rangers after the dog has allegedly had three previous attacks on humans, placing the most recent victim in hospital. There is considerable risk around the safety of staff when handling this dog, hence the animal required heavy sedation to remove from the Council vehicle and place into a shelter pen. > > Almost immediately following arrival, there were significant concerns that this dog was damaging the wire on his cage. Staff were not able to safely enter and exit the pen due to concerning behaviours exhibited by the dog. The dog was placed onto a multimodal behavioural management plan which included behaviour medications. Deep sedation was required to facilitate safe handling of this dog to move to another kennel. > > Since arriving in care in Sept 2024 this dog has not been able to be safely handled. He has had multiple behavioural and veterinary reviews, but given his level of stress, large safety concerns and general inability to work with this animal his behaviour and mental well-being is continuing to diminish. > > This dog has had issues noted with recurrent, intermittent diarrhoea and lameness over the last few months. We have provided supportive care (i.e. analgesia) but are unable to safely vet check this animal so there is concern that we are not able to adequately manage this animal. When assessed, vet staff make a visual assessment from the outside of his kennel. On all occasions (with multiple, separate vet team staff) they have noted this dogs discomfort and alarming body language when sitting to observe. This dog has often lunged towards staff, growled or stalked staff members when assessing him directly. It is my understanding this dog exhibits similar behaviours when kennel staff are working next to him whilst cleaning pens etc. > > In my professional opinion, this dog is mentally and physically suffering in our care. This is exacerbated by the fact that this is a dangerous dog which poses considerable safety risk to people. > > As a result, this dog has been penned in a kennel, unhandled since arrival in early September. We have no specific, safe way to interact and medically examine this dog and it is my ongoing concern that this dog is suffering in our care. > > Just some further additional information from our Animal behaviour team below since last email: > > Just also wanting to flag a few things for Boofhead in case not already noted, he is on a sensitivity diet however we are needing to use other treats for medicating/while cleaning to distract him/for safety as won't take sensitive diet approved treats (they are a bit less appetising than other treats). Also has an intermittent issue with his back leg at times non weight baring/ skipping when walking. Flagging again with vet team to see what is able to be done without safely being able to examine Boofhead. Boofhead has since been placed on some pain relief as a trial which began on the 23/3/25 and will go for 10 days. We should hopefully be able to see any notable difference with this onboard if he is experiencing any pain in his backend.

1. The applicant's written submissions include the following. As a father he does everything he can to support his family and ensure their safety and security. This is why he decided to rent the property which has a fully fenced area with electronic front security gate, a secure gate that separates the garage to the backyard and had plenty of space for his kids and dog. He says that on 21 May 2024 he left for work and the dog was securely behind the gate. The dog was micro chipped, vaccinated and registered. He had an exemption for getting desexed under a breeder's license. He said that the gate malfunctioned. He says that the Council officers had been told of his inability to read and write properly and the need for verbal communication. He says that they discussed financial hardship. He said they were working well together to address matters with respect to compliance and other issues such as the malfunctioning gate. He thought that the Council workers were going to help him. He says however they didn't. He says he received no help or guidance with options in regard to the affordability of approved training and desexing. He says desexing was a matter of affordability and time, especially with the added costs of the unexpected arrival of puppies. He says that the dog was no longer allowed in the front yard and central gate. The gate was secured with a slide bolt and locked in place with a padlock and the side gate was screwed shut in several places. He said on 4 September he got up and got ready for work as usual. Whilst at work he was told that the dog had bitten someone. He left work. Upon arrival at home, he says there were a lot of strangers, two police cars and two guys in suits claiming that the dog had gotten out and attacked a person on the street. He says that the people trespass on his property. He says that the dog was in the backyard and was still in the backyard when he got home. He said that the dog cannot get out of the backyard. This is why he knew that the dog was not the offending dog on 4 September. He said that the Council did not conduct a proper investigation.
2. He submits "I want my dog back, he's my best friend and my family. He's suffering and is all alone. I'm not allowed to visit because the poor guy gets upset when I leave and rightfully so. My poor mate is alone isolated and confused and being given higher doses of medication to keep him manageable. Please, please, please let him come home."
3. In a further set of submissions, he says that he was at work at the time of the 4 September attacks. He says the dog was securely locked within the premises and in the backyard when he got home. He says the witness statements vary regarding the colour of the dog, colour of the dog collar or if a collar was worn at all. He says that he has been threatened by neighbours. He says details are inaccurate. He says that he has cooperated with Council with every step and tried to come to positive solutions and outcomes. He says that he has made arrangements for the dog to be desexed and that an enclosure will be constructed subject to any specifications required for the dogs return home. He says the Council has offered no support or provided any alternative solutions. He says the Council does not offer a government run training program for dogs with their owners. He said the Council had made up their minds prior to arrival on the scene. He submits that the Council record has many mistakes. He says that Council is not required to prove that the dog was the attacker, rather just say it is. He says the Council cannot order destruction without a Prohibition Order as the dog has not committed an offence to a severity level that warrants destruction on its own accord. He says he's a responsible owner that has barriers to reading and writing. He says he has been suffering from financial hardship. He says that s 86 of the Act provides for a defence to any charge under the Act if the offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from any failure on the part of the person to take reasonable care to avoid committing the offence.
4. In relation to the Control (Dangerous Dog) Order he says the Order should be overturned for the following reasons. He moved to the property to ensure the safety and security of his family and dog. The property was chosen because it was fully fenced in both the front and rear. He was at work at the time of the attack and upon leaving for work his dog was securely locked within the premises. His son went out and came back, securing the gates after leaving and returning. The front security gate opened on its own. It malfunctioned in the presence of Council officers.

1. The respondent submits it made the Order following an attack by the dog on 4 September 2024 during which a female person was rammed and bitten on her arm causing two puncture wounds, including one that required hospital treatment. A second female person was also attacked by the dog which growled at her and tried to bite her.
2. The respondent says that the decision to issue the Order was made on the basis of, having considered all the material available to it, it being satisfied that: the applicant was the owner of the dog which was the subject of a Dangerous Dog Order made following an incident in May 2024; that the dog was involved in the incidents that occurred on 4 September 2024 and that at the time of the incident, the conditions of the Dangerous Dog Order were not being complied with and that the dog was not under effective control and was not wearing either a muzzle or a Dangerous Dog Collar; and that the applicant had a history of non-compliance with the Act.
3. The Order imposed by the respondent prohibits the applicant from acquiring or becoming responsible for the control of any dog for a period of five years; requires that the applicant's male, blue and white American Staffordshire terrier known as Boof be destroyed; and requires that ownership of any other dog in the applicant's care or ownership be transferred to another person or surrendered to the respondent for assessment as to suitable rehoming.
4. The application also seeks to review the decision made by the respondent on 17 July 2024 in respect of the Dangerous Dog Order pursuant to ss 50 and 51 of the Act. The Dangerous Dog Order was, according to the respondent, made following an incident on 21 May 2024 where a female person was walking along the pavement near the applicant's premises when she was attacked by the dog, pushed against a car and bitten on her right arm, causing puncture wounds and severe bruising.
5. By letter dated 1 July 2024 the respondent invited the applicant to advance submissions in opposition to the making of a Dangerous Dog Order. No submissions were received by the respondent.
6. By letter dated 17 July 2024 the respondent imposed the Dangerous Dog Order. The letter advised of the rights of review to this Tribunal. The time for the review was 14 days. The application for review was not made until 1 December 2024.
7. The respondent's position is that the applicant has not articulated what special circumstances exist to justify an extension of time and refers to the requirements of s 72(3) of the Act.
8. The respondent submits that the applicant does not appear to dispute that his dog was responsible for the attack, but says the attack was not committed intentionally and did not result from a failure on his part to take reasonable care to avoid it. The respondent says that, even if that was so, it would be irrelevant to the assessment of the appropriateness of the imposition of a Dangerous Dog Order.
9. The respondent says that the issues for determination by the Tribunal are as follows. First, has it been established to the requisite standard that the Dog was responsible for the attacks on for September 2024. Second, if the answer to that question is affirmative, then is the imposition of the Order the correct and preferable decision?
10. The respondent says that it does not understand there to be any dispute that at the time of the fourth incident that the dog was in the care and control of the applicant. The respondent submits that the evidence establishes that he was, even though the applicant was at work at the time. As to the requirement that the dog attacked, harassed or chased a person, the respondent submits that on the evidence, there can be no reasonable dispute that a member of the public was attacked by a dog that ran to her and bit her arm; that the attack caused a puncture wound to her left arm which required hospital treatment; and that another person was also attacked in her front yard by a large dog which is growling and trying to bite her. The respondent says that the description of those dogs given by the witnesses accords with the description of the dog, breed, size and colour, the behaviour of the dog and its aggression and preparedness to attack and bite; and that the dog was seen to be concerned with various puppies that were also loose on the street?, noting that the applicant and the dog had puppies; and that the dog was seen by Mrs Ellard to return to the vicinity of the applicant's home who observed that the front of the gate of the premises was open. The dog was known to live at the applicant's property.
11. The respondent does accept that there is a slight inconsistency in the evidence by reference to the dog wearing a yellow and red dangerous dog collar, whereas one of the witnesses said the dog that attacked her was wearing a camouflaged dark green collar. The respondent says that that is likely explained by the witness being mistaken or the collar being changed between the time of the attack and the arrival of the police and respondent's officers.
12. The respondent says that as at the time of the attack that it had already imposed and served the Dangerous Dog Order. The Act provides a defence if it can be satisfied that the applicant did not intend the relevant incident to occur, and the incident did not result from any failure on his part to take all reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of the event; or the relevant incident occurred while the dog was, without the persons consent, in the possession or control of the other person. The respondent submits that neither of the latter two elements of the exclusions can apply (even if the first part about not intending the incident to have occurred applies).
13. The respondent says that the premises were not secured to ensure the dog could not escape into the front yard; the electronic gate at the front of the premises was not maintained or secured in a way as to prevent it from opening and thereby allowing the dog to escape; the applicant had not arranged for the dog to undergo an approved training course as required by the Control (Menacing Dog) Order issued on 23 October 2023; the Dog was not wearing a muzzle as was required by the Dangerous Dog Order and not wearing (or potentially not wearing) a collar as required by the Dangerous Dog Order. The respondent says that these are precautions which were reasonable for the purposes of s 59A(4) of the Act and therefore it cannot be said that the attacks on 4 September 2024 did not result from a failure to take all reasonable steps.
14. The respondent submits the decision under review is the correct and preferable decision, and in the alternative at the very least a Prohibition Order should still be made, but for a lesser period of time.

1. There is no real dispute about the facts of the first incident involving the postman.
2. There is video footage.
3. To the extent that there is any suggestion that the postman provoked the attack, or the attack was justified because the postman was wearing bright colours, I reject the assertion. There is a photograph of the puncture wound.
4. There is a minor dispute on the second attack, namely whether or not the attack was on the street or on the applicant's property. The victim provided a witness statement. Both the applicant who says he watched the incident on CCTV (but says the CCTV cannot be produced) and his partner say the victim was on the applicant's property.
5. I find that the attack occurred when the victim was on the property rather than the street.
6. Otherwise, there is no dispute there was an attack, and there are photographs and medical records in relation to the injury.
7. There is no real dispute about the third attack. There is CCTV footage of Boof chasing the victim. There are photographs and medical records relating to the injuries. It is clear the dog was in the front yard and the gate was open. The Council does not challenge that the gate malfunctioned, and I find the applicant did not intend for Boof to be in a yard with an open gate but did intend for him to be in the front yard.
8. As to the 4 September incident I find that Boof was the dog involved in the attack. Although the victim did not give oral evidence, her statement is detailed. It describes a dog that fits Boof's description. It addresses the question as to whether the dog could have been Axel, being the other dog on the street that the applicants say looks similar to Boof.
9. Each of Ms Mason, Mr Ellard and Mrs Ellard describe the dog by reference to the puppies and following the puppies into the applicant's property and entering the applicant's property when called by the lady at the property. I find the lady at the applicant's property was the applicant's partner (notwithstanding that Mrs Ellard's description of a lady in her 20's does not precisely match the applicant's partner). The applicant's partner was at the applicant's property that morning. It is clear that the gate was open. It is not disputed that the puppies escaped, and that she got them back into the applicant's property. It is clear that the applicant's partner left the property in a silver car. There can be no doubt what property was referred to.
10. The descriptions of Ms Mason and Mrs Ellard match Boof. To the extent there is a difference between the term dark grey or dark brown, the photos to me, of what is agreed to be Boof, could be described as dark brown. I find that the colour of the dog can look different in different light, but the general description of the dog matches. It is true that Mr Ellard's description in oral evidence of a light brown dog doesn't match. I find he was mistaken about the dog being light brown and prefer the evidence of the other witnesses (including his wife).
11. As to the collar, I do not find that the reference to a green collar means the dog was not Boof. It is possible that the collar was changed after Boof was put out the back. It is also possible that the description of a green collar was mistaken.
12. There are inconsistencies in the case of the applicant including the reference to the number of puppies being a smaller amount than five or six when this is what both the applicant and his partner told the Council in their interviews, and this is what the other witnesses saw. The version of events that the gate was left open because of a delivery is partially inconsistent with the sign on the property referring to delivery people needing to call a mobile number rather than entering, not corroborated by the applicant's partner or Michael, and inconsistent with her record of interview where she said she did not know why the gate was open.
13. Although I cannot conclusively find how Boof got out, the fact is that he did get out, likely because he was inside the house and got out the front noting that the applicant's partner went in and out of the house. Michael Tomkin's evidence is not of much assistance as he did not witness what occurred and cannot say whether the dog was out the back at all during the morning because he was in his room either asleep or in a state of partial awake partial asleep. I find the applicant's partner put Boof back out the back before leaving in the silver car which was taken to the applicant's place of work.

1. This review takes place in accordance with s 34 of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013. The Tribunal must examine the decision of the respondent by way of rehearing. The Tribunal is required to reach the correct or preferable decision but in doing so must have regard to, and give appropriate weight to, the decision of the respondent. The Tribunal is required to have regard to the evidence or material before the decision-maker and also has a discretion to admit additional evidence for the purposes of the rehearing. I have identified the evidence before the Tribunal earlier in these reasons.

1. The time to challenge the Dangerous Dog Order had expired before these proceedings were instituted. The Tribunal can extend time. Section 72(3) of the Act provides an application to the Tribunal must be made within 14 days of the receipt of the decision, and that an extension of time may only be granted where special circumstances exist to justify an extension of time. Whether time should be extended may turn in part on the explanation given for the delay, and in part on whether the merits of the argument favour an extension.
2. The explanation for the delay is that the applicant has difficulty with reading and writing. He can and does get assistance from others such as his children or his partner. He did not demonstrate that he was unaware of the Order or its requirements. He had previously received a series of earlier Orders.
3. The Dangerous Dog Order was made pursuant to ss 50 and 51 of the Act. Section 50(3) sets out what such an Order requires. Section 51 allows the Council to make such an Order if satisfied:
   1. The dog is dangerous.
   2. The dog has attacked, harassed or chased a person or an animal or bird, or is likely to do so in circumstances that would constitute an offence against the Act.
4. I find Boof is dangerous.
5. I also find that he attacked, by the time the Order was made, three people.

Did the attacks occur in circumstances that would constitute an offence under the Act?

1. Section 55 provides that an offence is committed where a person who owns or is responsible for the control of the dog contravenes an Order under 'this division' which includes the Control Orders under ss 50 and 51.
2. The Control (Menacing Dog) Order required the applicant to undertake the training course within 30 days of the date of the Order, the course to include muzzle training, desensitisation and counter conditioning, environment enrichment, behaviour adjustment training, body language and foundation behaviours. The applicant did not undertake that course.
3. Section 43 provides that a person responsible for the control of a dog is guilty of an offence if the dog is wandering at large. There is a defence to a charge under s 43 if it is proved that the defendant had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the dog from wandering at large.
4. Section 44(2) provides:

(2) A person who owns or is responsible for the control of a dog is guilty of an offence if the dog attacks, harasses or chases or otherwise endangers the health of a person or an animal or bird owned by or in the charge of another person (whether or not actual injury is caused).

1. Clearly the circumstances of an offence under ss 43 and 44(2) are made out in relation to the third attack.

It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this section if it is proved that the dog was at the time of the offence being genuinely used in the reasonable defence of a person or property, or for droving or removing an animal found trespassing. > > (Emphasis added)

2. The defence in s 44(4) could not possibly relate to the first incident involving the postman or the third incident involving the lady walking past the house. It might in theory apply to the second attack where Mr T was trespassing. However, I am not satisfied that it has been shown that the dog was being genuinely used in the reasonable defence of a person or property. Mr T was on the outside of the house and caravan. The evidence does not establish that he was trying to get inside the house or caravan or that he made any threats.
3. Section 86 provides for a general defence:

It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this Act if it is proved -

(a) that the offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from any failure on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence; or

(b) if the offence involves a dog - that the dog was at the time of the alleged offence in the possession or control of another person without the defendant's consent.

(Emphasis added)

1. Interestingly s 43 uses the language 'all reasonable steps' whilst s 86 uses slightly different language relating to 'take reasonable care'.
2. Whilst each of the first three attacks occurred when the applicant was not present, the evidence does not show that the dog was in the control of another person without his consent.
3. I find that the applicant would be able to make out the first part of s 86(a) on the material before me in relation to the first three attacks, that is he did not intend to commit the offence.

Was reasonable care taken to avoid the commission of any offence?

1. As to the first offence the dog was outside and tethered in a way that he easily broke free of. As to the second attack the dog was outside in an area that was not secured. I find that no defence could apply to the first and second attacks.
2. As to the third attack on which the relevant Order was based, the dog was out of the front of the property. The gate was not working and was malfunctioning. It is not crystal clear whether this was the first time that the gate had opened by itself. Clearly if there were earlier times the gate had opened it would not be taking reasonable care to leave Boof in the front yard.
3. Suppose I accepted that this was the first time the gate had ever malfunctioned. Maybe it would be taking reasonable care to have the dog secured behind a gate that the applicant believed could not be opened. However, the applicant had still committed an offence in that he did not comply with the earlier Order in relation to training. Training would have been a reasonable step to take. Some care is needed with any explanation that training is expensive. Whilst it clearly is expensive, owning a dangerous dog is not an absolute right and carries with it obligations. It is no answer to say that a dangerous dog can be kept in contravention of an Order requiring training to say that the Order will not be complied with because it is expensive to do the training. Further, the applicant noted in his evidence that Boof had become more aggressive after 'his nuts dropped' and considered that if he was desexed he would become less aggressive. In those circumstances desexing would be a reasonable step to take.
4. There is also a question as to whether a defence to a charge under the Act (which is a criminal prosecution) has application to the phrase in s 51 referring to the circumstances of the offence.
5. If there were no authority on the point, I might be attracted to the argument that the circumstances of the offence must encompass any defence to an offence, as if a defence was made out then there would be no offence.
6. However, the issue has been considered in other cases, including at the level of a District Court Master, and another Senior Member of this Tribunal. Even if I were not 'bound' to follow their reasoning I would be careful in departing from their reasoning and would generally only do so if positively satisfied they were wrong.
7. Senior Member Stevens in Aldridge v Whyalla City Council [2020] SACAT 13 provided this analysis:

1. S 51(a)(ii) requires that the relevant behaviour of the dog must be "in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act". The intent behind these words is not entirely clear. 2. It is arguable that the s 51(a)(ii) criterion will not be met if it is proved that one of the statutory defences (such as s 86) can be made out. I understood it to be argued in this case that the applicant and Ms Murphey had taken reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence and that in such circumstances the statutory defence in s 86 was made out and therefore the criterion under s 51(a)(ii) was not met. 3. In Ash v City of Burnside (unreported judgment delivered 3 March 2016, at para [174]), Master Rice expressed the view that the statutory defences had no application to the making of a control Order by the Council. Their application was limited to the context of a charge for a criminal offence. In Zhang v City of Burnside (unreported decision delivered 18 August 2017), Master Keith formally adopted that view, but appeared to stop short of wholeheartedly endorsing it. 4. If the view of Master Rice is to be accepted, it is necessary to identify the purpose for which the words "in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this or any other Act" have been included. I consider that such purpose may be to accommodate persons or bodies that have been granted exemptions under s 80A of the Act. For example, I assume that police may have an exemption from the provisions of s 44 which enables them to use police dogs to chase and apprehend criminals. Such a chase or attack would not constitute an offence against the Act because it would come within an exemption from the provisions of s 44. Section 44 would have no application. This, to my mind, sufficiently explains the purpose of including these words in s 51(a)(ii). 5. I do not consider that the statutory defences are of any relevance to this present case. I note that s 51(a)(ii) uses the following language:

"attacked, harassed or chased a person ...in circumstances that would constitute an offence" (my emphasis).

8. The word "circumstances" refers to the circumstances of the attack, harassment or chase that has occurred. Attention is directed to the circumstances of that event, not to the broader circumstances of the person responsible for the dog. The word "would" is included for a reason. It only has work to do if Master Rice is correct. Otherwise, it could be left out. By its inclusion, the intention is to embrace situations where the attack, harassment or chase would constitute an offence, if not for a statutory defence.
9. This approach finds support, in my view, from the terms of s 86. Firstly, the introductory words refer to "a defence to a charge for an offence" (my emphasis). Then there is a reference to "the defendant". These references support the views of Master Rice. The section itself does not purport to have any application to issues under s 51 and is drafted in terms which are inapt for such application.
10. Secondly, the section suggests that it is a defence that "the offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from...". This language is consistent with an understanding that the offence was nonetheless committed even if the defendant is not to be held liable for it. The same understanding (or perhaps looseness of expression) is found in s 51(a)(ii), and what is meant is made clearer by the insertion of the word "would".
11. For this reason, I would hold that it is not relevant to this case to examine the possible application of the defence set out in s 86. However, in case I am found to be wrong in that conclusion, I will nonetheless proceed to consider whether the defence provision is made out on the evidence.
12. S 86 provides:

It is a defence to a charge of an offence against this Act if it is proved-

(a) that the offence was not committed intentionally and did not result from any failure on the part of the defendant to take reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence; or

(b) if the offence involves a dog - that the dog was at the time of the alleged offence in the possession or control of another person without the defendant's consent.

1. Paragraph (b) obviously has no application. At the relevant time (when the incidents occurred) the dogs were not in the possession or control of any person. They were "at large".
2. As to paragraph (a), I accept that the offences were not committed intentionally. However, I do not accept that they did not result from any failure on the part of the applicant or Ms Murphey to take reasonable care to avoid the commission of the offence. If the s 86 defence is applicable, the onus is on the applicant to prove the relevant facts on the balance of probabilities. The evidence from the applicant and Ms Murphey was meagre. It does not establish to my satisfaction what they did to prevent the dogs escaping. It goes no further than proving that on the two days in question the dogs were left in the house, the house was broken into and the dogs let out.

3. Justice B Doyle in Wilson v City of Onkaparinga [2024] SASC 139 noted the tension in the sections. His Honour found that it was not necessary on that appeal to resolve the question of construction. His Honour said (in relation to a Prohibition Order):

1. As has been noted, when the respondent made its decision, it referenced offences against ss 43(1), 44(2) and 55(1) of the Act. The Tribunal did not identify the offence provisions by reference to their sections, but its reference to Stella wandering at large is a reference to an offence against s 43, its reference to Stella not wearing a collar or muzzle nor being registered is a reference to an offence against s 55, and its reference to the attack itself is a reference to an offence against s 44(2). 2. Whilst the respondent and the Tribunal separately considered and rejected what might loosely be described as the 'defence' to the making of a Prohibition Order in s 59A(4), in neither forum was there a specific discussion of the elements of the offences set out in the three offence provisions referred to above, nor an explicit consideration of whether any defences were available. 3. Whether it was necessary and appropriate to do so is a different question. The view has been taken by the Tribunal in Aldridge v Whyalla City Council, [34] following observations made by Master Rice in Ash v City of Burnside, [35] that the same expression ('in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this Act') appearing in s 52(a)(i) of the Act does not require consideration to be given to whether a defence under s 86 of the Act would have been available in the event that the relevant offence had been the subject of a charge. The reasoning in Ash v City of Burnside also extended to the defences specified within s 43(2) and s 44(4), to which I will refer below. The Master considered that the language of the defence provisions was such that it only had application in criminal proceedings. 4. In Aldridge v Whyalla City Council, the Tribunal considered that the word 'would' (in the expression 'in circumstances that would constitute an offence') only had work to do if the decision in Ash v City of Burnside was correct, on the basis that its purpose is to identify circumstances which would, but for the availability of a statutory defence, amount to the constitution of an offence. A second reason given for adopting that view was that the words of the defence provisions suggest that they contemplate that the defence is available even though an 'offence' has occurred (that is, they do not deny the fact that an offence has occurred, rather, they avoid the consequences of that circumstance). Respectfully, that line of reasoning is in tension with the first. If the availability of a defence does not, in the scheme of the Act, alter the fact that there has been an 'offence', the proposed explanation for the word 'would' appears redundant. 5. Another explanation for the word 'would' is simply that it makes clear that the conclusion may be reached even though no offence has been charged (i.e. the purpose is to identify circumstances that would constitute an offence if an offence had been charged). 6. On that view, it is an open question whether regard should be had to statutory defences that might have been available. The question would be resolved having regard to a consideration of the entire text, structure and purpose of the Act. 7. There are considerations that support the conclusion that the defence provisions are intended to be 'picked up' by the reference to 'circumstances that would constitute an offence against the Act'. They include the possible incongruity arising from the fact that s 47(1)(a), located in Division 1B of Part 5 of the Act, contemplates that in criminal proceedings the court may only make a destruction or disposal Order in respect of a dog where the person is 'found guilty', which must entail a consideration of the relevant defences. It might be thought incongruous if a destruction Order under s 51 (in Division 3 of Part 5) can be made by a Council or the Board (and affirmed by the Tribunal) by reason of a conclusion, according to the civil standard, that circumstances have arisen which establish the elements of an offence, even though a defence would plainly be available. 8. Having said that, s 59A, unlike s 51, contains its own limitation, namely, the provision in s 59A(4) which, to a significant extent, does the same work as the statutory 'defences' considered in Aldridge v Whyalla City Council and Ash v City of Burnside. 9. These constructional questions were not the subject of submissions before me, nor have I been referred by the parties to authorities considering similar statutory formulae. In those circumstances and because, as I explain below, the construction which favours the applicant does not ultimately avail him on this appeal, I refrain from expressing a concluded view about the question of construction. 10. In the case of s 43(1), the offence is constituted by proof that Stella was wandering at large. The section contains a defence provision which applies where the person charged proves that they 'had taken all reasonable steps to prevent the dog from wandering at large': s 43(2). The framing of the defence tends to confirm that there is no element of intention or negligence in the offence provision. It is an offence of strict liability, subject to statutory defences. (For the avoidance of doubt, I observe that it is most unlikely given the nature of the offence and the specific statutory defences provided for that any free-standing 'act of a stranger' defence applies.[37]) Whether the applicant had taken all reasonable steps to prevent Stella wandering at large resolves to the same question that arose under s 59A(4), to which I return below. Any failure distinctly to consider that defence therefore has no independent significance in this case. 11. In the case of s 44(2), a person who is responsible for the control of a dog is guilty of an offence if the dog attacks, harasses or chases or otherwise endangers the health of a person or an animal or bird owned by or in the charge of another person (whether or not actual injury is caused). Again, seemingly, there is no fault element that must be proved. There is a defence available if it is proved that the dog was, at the time of the offence, being genuinely used in the reasonable defence of a person or property, or for droving or removing an animal found trespassing: s 44(4). Plainly, that defence had no potential operation here. 12. In the case of s 55(1), if an Order including a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order is contravened, the person who owns or is responsible for the control of a dog is guilty of an offence. It is a defence to a charge against that provision if it is proved that the defendant was not, at the time of the alleged offence, aware that the Order was in force: s 55(2). Since the Tribunal otherwise found that the applicant was aware that Stella was subject to the Control (Dangerous Dog) Order, there was no need separately to address whether that defence was made out. It may be that the Tribunal did not resolve whether the applicant was aware of the requirements stipulated in the Order, but I do not consider that a failure to be aware of the content or meaning of the Order is a basis for making out the defence. The issue is whether the person is aware of the fact that the Order which has been contravened was in force. 13. The Order was contravened because: the premises were not fenced; Stella had not been kept indoors; Stella was not wearing an approved collar; Stella was, whilst not confined to the premises, not wearing a muzzle and was not under the physical restraint of the applicant; and the applicant had not arranged training of Stella. It may be debated whether, within the meaning of s 59A(3)(a), Stella attacked the Golden Retriever 'in circumstances that would constitute an offence against' s 55(2) by reference to each and every contravention. Focusing, for example, on the failure to arrange training, it is not clear to me that it could be concluded that the Stella attacked the Golden Retriever in circumstances that would constitute an offence against s 55(2) for that reason. But since one of the failures to comply with the Order related to the non-confining and non-restraining of Stella, the requisite connection was able to be drawn. 14. Turning back to the reasonable steps provision in s 59A(4), the question was whether the event did not result from any failure on the part of the applicant to take all reasonable steps to avoid its occurrence. Two observations may be made about that provision. First, it involves a causal inquiry, albeit one about the causal effect of an omission, which requires a past hypothetical to be posited. Secondly, it is cast in terms which place the persuasive and evidential onus on the dog owner. 15. The Tribunal reasoned that reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of the event included ensuring that the door was appropriately secured at all times. 16. I am not convinced that it would be reasonable to require the door to be secured at all times. There must be circumstances where practical necessity, [38] or possibly where there is reasonably believed to be decreased risk of escape by those means, would have the consequence that the failure to secure the front door would not be a failure to take all reasonable steps. What amounts to securing a door must depend on the nature and size of the dog.

4. I consider, with respect, that I should follow the reasoning of Senior Member Stevens and Master Rice even though I accept that there is a potential argument on the other direction (as noted by Justice B Doyle but not determined). I cannot say that the reasoning of Senior Member or Master Rice is 'wrong'. An analogy might be to the concept of an affirmative defence in criminal law such as self-defence, insanity or provocation - the defences only arise where the 'circumstances of the offence' are made out - the onus is on the defendant to prove the affirmative defence, but that only arises where the prosecution has proven its case.
5. On that basis it is not appropriate to extend time to challenge the Dangerous Dog Order as I am not satisfied that there are special circumstances to justify the extension. The Order was the correct and preferable decision in any event.
6. For completeness, even if I extended the time for review, I would not set aside the Order. Boof is clearly a dangerous dog. He had, by the time of the Order attacked three people. The attack which formed the basis of the Order was unprovoked.
7. For completeness, I would find that even if it was arguable that reasonable steps had been taken to secure Boof in the front yard, I am not positively persuaded that reasonable steps had been taken where he was free to roam the yard where the gate was malfunctioning. The onus is on the applicant to prove the defence. I am not satisfied that he has proven the defence.
8. In any event an offence was committed by the failure to comply with the Order requiring the commencement of an approved training course within 30 days.

Should the Tribunal set aside or vary the Prohibition Order?

1. The purposes of the Act are set out in s 3 as being to encourage responsible dog and cat ownership; to reduce public and environmental nuisance caused by dogs and cats; and to promote the effective management of dogs and cats. Senior Member Stevens in Ivka v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 5 described the Act as having a public purpose which includes the protection of people and animals from harm or nuisance which may be caused by dogs that are characterised as dangerous, menacing, or a nuisance, and achieves that aim through the series of Orders that may be made under Part 5 of the Act.
2. The purpose of a Prohibition Order under Part 5 of the Act is not to impose a penalty or punishment, but rather to promote responsible dog ownership and ensure the safety of persons and animals (Kerr & Parker-Benton v City of Charles Sturt [2019] SACAT 10).
3. Section 59A provides:

(1) A Council or the Board may, in accordance with this Division, make a Prohibition Order against a person.

(2) A Prohibition Order -

(a) prohibits the person from acquiring or becoming responsible for the control of any dog for the period specified in the Order; and

(b) requires each dog owned by the person, or for the control of which the person is responsible, at the time the Order takes effect -

(i) to be destroyed or, if the Order so allows, disposed of in a specified manner, within a specified period (but not less than one month after the Order takes effect); and

(ii) until destroyed or disposed of, to be kept or detained at a place specified in the Order (or at some other place subsequently approved by the Council or the Board (as the case requires)).

(3) A Council or the Board may, on its own initiative or on application, make a Prohibition Order against a person if satisfied that -

(a) while the person owned or was responsible for the control of a dog, the dog attacked, harassed or chased a person or an animal or bird owned by or in the charge of a person in circumstances that would constitute an offence against this Act; and

(b) -

(i) the dog was already subject to a Destruction Order or a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order; or

(ii) during the 5 years preceding the event referred to in paragraph (a), a Destruction Order or a Control (Dangerous Dog) Order was made in relation to some other dog on grounds that arose while the person owned or was responsible for the control of that other dog.

(3a) A Council or the Board may, on its own initiative or on application, make a Prohibition Order against a person if satisfied that the person is subject to a supervision Order under section 269O of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 .

(4) However, a Council or the Board may not make a Prohibition Order if the person satisfies the Council or the Board that -

(a) the person did not intend the event referred to in subsection (3)(a) to occur and the event did not result from any failure on the part of the person to take all reasonable steps to avoid the occurrence of the event; or

(b) the event referred to in subsection (3)(a) occurred while the dog was, without the person's consent, in the possession or control of another person.

(5) An Order made by a Council -

(a) must be made in the manner and form required by the Board; and

(b) must be recorded by the Council in a manner and form approved by the Board and the record kept readily available for public inspection; and

(c) takes effect when the Council gives a copy of the Order to the person against whom it is made.

(6) An Order made by a Council may be revoked by the Council by written notice to the person against whom the Order was made.

(7) A note of the revocation must be entered in the record kept by the Council under this section.

(8) An Order made by the Board -

(a) takes effect when the Board gives a copy of the Order to the person against whom it is made; and

(b) may be revoked by the Board by written notice to a person who owns or is responsible for the control of the dog; and

(c) must, at the request of the Board, be noted in the register kept under this Act by the Council in whose area the dog is usually kept.

1. As set out earlier, I am satisfied that Boof was responsible for the attack on 4 September 2024.
2. The dog was already the subject of the Dangerous Dog Order of 17 July 2024.
3. Although the applicant was at work, I consider that Boof was still in his possession or control. (Even if it could be said that Boof was also in the control of the applicant's partner in the sense that she was home and awake, whilst Michael was asleep or half asleep and the applicant was at work, the applicant's partner was staying at the property with his consent).

Had all reasonable steps been taken to prevent the attack?

1. First the front gate was left open. On the applicant's evidence that was deliberate to allow for a delivery. It would seem that the applicant's partner, on the basis of her interview to the Council, was not made aware of that delivery (even if the applicant says in his evidence he told her).
2. Second, notwithstanding the earlier Orders no approved training program had commenced.
3. Third, the Dangerous Dog Order of 17 July 2024 had required Boof to be desexed within 30 days of the Order. Boof was not desexed.
4. Thus, even if some steps had been taken (such as the applicant leaving Boof at the back when he went to work), all reasonable steps were not taken because the dog left the backyard when the front gate was open, without a muzzle where he had not undergone an approved training course.
5. The Council also had a discretion to exercise in deciding whether to make an Order. It was relevant that this was the fourth attack involving Boof. It was relevant that the applicant had not complied with earlier Orders made by the Council. The Council had been trying to work with the applicant over a considerable period of time in the sense of issuing a series of Orders going back to 2022 with a cascading series of seriousness and requisite steps.
6. In addition to those matters it is relevant that Boof-Head is a loved member of the applicant's family. It is relevant that the applicant is devastated by his loss. But this needs to be balanced against the protection of the public. The applicant, with respect, has underestimated how dangerous the dog is and the effect that an attack has on members of the public. A couple of times in his evidence he described the injuries occurring through puncture wounds in terms that suggested they were nothing, and that if Boof wanted to seriously attack someone he would rip their whole arm off. A member of the public walking past a property should not be intimidated by a dog charging at them or biting them. It is also no answer to say that Boof is fine when the applicant is present - the attacks all occurred when the applicant was not present. The non-compliance with earlier Orders on the grounds of cost also suggests that the obligations that come with owning a dangerous dog are not taken sufficiently seriously. Finally, the RSPCA's assessment of the dog and his temperament is also relevant.
7. Whilst a Prohibition Order of five years is a long time, I note that under s 59A the Council has the power to revoke an Order should the right circumstances arise.
8. I accordingly find that the decision of the Council was the correct and preferable decision.