Dog owner’s $200 fine halved

Press, 7 September 1984, Page 11

Dog owner’s $200 fine halved

A ' housewife whose German'shepherd bitch bit a high school girl when she was delivering the “Star” newspaper, has had her fine of $2OO halved;by Mr Justice Holland on appeal in the High Court. Aneta Campbell was fined $2OO by Judge Hay in the District Court when he convicted her after a defended hearing on a charge of being the owner of a German. shepherd which attacked Theresa Wright.

His Honour reduced the fine to $lOO. i Mr P. N. Dyhrberg appeared for Mrs Campbell, and Mr G. K. Panckhurst for the police. Evidence was given by Miss Wright in the District Court that on the afternoon of March 31 she was riding her cycle in Okeover Street making newspaper deliveries when the dog came over a low white fence on a property and attacked her on the left and right sides. A man went to her aid and with some difficulty he

was able to get the dog away from the girl who was described at that stage as being petrified with fear. The dog had a litter of pups some six weeks old.

After the girl’s father attempted to discuss the matter with Mrs Campbell the police were informed. Mrs Campbell told the police that she had been out and normally she never had the dog chained up. Normally it was well behaved but because she recently had had pups that could have been the reason why it attacked the girl. She was sorry somebody had been hurt and in future she would keep the dog chained at all times. Mrs Campbell said that she had had a fence erected and she believed that the dog could not get out of the back yard. That had been done after a policeman was bitten when he came to investigate an earlier complaint. At the conclusion of Mrs Campbell’s evidence in the District Court counsel sub-

mitted that the charge should be dismissed on the basis that it had been proved that she had taken all reasonable precautions. The submission was rejected by Judge Hay. Mr Justice Holland held that Mrs Campbell failed on her own testimony. She had told the policeman that she normally kept the dog tied up at the rear of her home. She also referred to the fact that some young children had been playing with the dog that day and she felt that the dog could have possibly got free through them. When giving evidence she did not say that she normally kept the dog chained.

“Any reasonable dog owner must have foreseen the possibility of the puppies getting out and the dog following, even though normally the dog would be contained by the fence,. It was accordingly necessary in my view for Mrs Campbell to prove that the fence was both dog and puppy

proof. Her evidence fell far short of that” his Honour said.

In addition Mrs Campbell must have realised that puppies were an attraction for children and there was a reasonable possibility of children opening a gate or creating an opening in the fence. She gave no explanation of why the dog was not chained. .

“l am satisfied that Judge Hay reached his conclusion that she had not acted reasonably without in any way being influenced by the dog previously biting a policeman,” said his Honour. He was satisfied that the fine . was substantially higher than was required and the fine would be reduced from $2OO to $lOO. Mrs Campbell could be grateful to Mr Dyhrberg for legal argument which was presented with skill and ability but the facts of the case did not seem to support the interesting points that were raised, said his Honour.