Hammer wielded in assault on police dog

Press, 30 July 1986, Page 6

Hammer wielded in assault on police dog

A man who hit a police dog on the head with a hammer as it pursued him from the scene of an attempted burglaiy was successfully prosecuted in the District Court yesterday under legislation introduced last year, providing for ill-treatment of a police dog carrying out its duty to be an offence.

The defendant, Wayne Austin Smith, aged 21, a forestry worker, of Blenheim, was fined a total of $725 on three charges relating to this incident on April 1, and on two unrelated offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act on March 12.

Judge Bisphan imposed a fine of $3OO on a charge of attempted burglary of the garage of Cambridge Services Ltd, in Sherborne Street, Christchurch, $lOO for cruelly ill-treating a police dog by hitting it with a hammer, $lOO for having an offensive weapon, a knife, which was found in a pocket after his arrest, $l5O for

having cannabis seeds, and $lOO for having a pipe for smoking cannabis.

He had admitted the charge of attempted burglary and possessing the pipe, but denied the other charges.

Mr E. Bedo appeared for Smith.

Sergeant W. P. Creasy prosecuted.

Evidence was that the police went to the service station at 2.30 a.m. and heard a person running on the roof. The man, found after his apprehension to be Smith, jumped to the ground and ran off. A police dog was instructed to approach him, and as it reached him he swung a hammer, hitting the dog on the side of its nose.

The dog was knocked off balance but recovered and apprehended Smith. It appeared unhurt but three days later it lost a piece of skin on its nuzzle, and the area was tender.

The drug offences arose from a police search of premises occupied by Smith. Cannabis seeds were found in a matchbox, inside a bag which was in a wardrobe in Smith’s bedroom. Smith denied knowledge of the cannabis seeds, and said other occupants of the premises had used his bag at times. He said he did not lash out with the hammer at the police dog. The dog had run up beside him, held his jersey and jacket and knocked him off bal-

ance. After the Judge held the charges proved, Mr Bedo said, when seeking fines to be imposed for the offences, that Smith had no previous convictions before these incidents. He said in relation to the cruelty to the police dog that the old Dog Registration and Hydatids Act provided that a person could go as far as destroy a dog which was set upon him. This would have provided a total answer to the situation Smith found himself in.

Mr Bedo said there seemed a certain irony in the fact that Smith had been prosecuted and convicted under legislation Introduced last year, and clearly designed to cover situations such as this. He had been prosecuted for hitting the dog which attacked and brought him down.

Mr Bedo said Smith came off second best in every respect, and his jersey and leather jacket, worth $3OO, had been “effectively lost” because of damage caused by the police dog.