The Accused was charged with four breaches of the Domestic Animals Act namely:
- breach of section 29(6) – owner of a dog attacking another dog causing an injury that is not in the nature of a serious injury
(Maximum Penalty: 10 Penalty Units - $1,849.20)
- breach of section 41E(2) x 3 – declared menacing dog outside the owner’s premises without effective control of some person by means of a chain, cord or leash
(Maximum Penalty per charge: 16 Penalty Units –$2,958.72)
The Accused is the owner of a Dingo which is a declared menacing dog.
In October 2022, January 2023 and February 2023 the Dingo was found outside the owner’s premises. On each occasion the Dingo had a collar on with a metal chain attached to it and a lead attached to the end of the metal chain.
In October 2022 the Dingo attacked Labradoodle type dog by biting it on the front right leg shoulder and shook the dog aggressively. Veterinary treatment was not required.
In January 2023 the Dingo attacked a Kelpie Cross type dog by biting it and shaking it. No injuries were observed.
In February 2023 the Dingo was in a neighbours property at 5:00am making banging, scraping and knocking sounds.
Inadequate fencing was the cause of the Dingo’s escape.
Magistrates’ Court Decision
In August 2023, the Accused appeared in the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court and entered a plea of guilty to the charges.
The matter was heard before His Honour Magistrate McGrane who found the charges proven. The Accused had prior matters from 2017 and 2020 for similar offending relating to the same Dingo.
Russell Kennedy Lawyers submitted to the Court the following amongst other things in relation to the charge:
- the offending was serious and could have had potential other consequences including if a child was attacked; and
- that the Court needed to send a message of specific (given prior history) and general deterrence to all dog owners.
The Accused submitted through their lawyer that:
- the Accused had fixed up the fencing at the property;
- that no human was attacked; and
- given the Accused’s age (90) he was of limited means.
His Honour Magistrate McGrane said it was fortunate no animal or child had been seriously injured and found it staggering that the Accused owned a Dingo.
His Honour acknowledged the fencing was now deemed as adequate as it could be. His Honour also said that those that owned dogs have to be astute so they are not a danger to other animals and residents. He said it was a matter of concern that this Dingo keeps escaping.
The Accused was with conviction fined an aggregate amount and ordered to pay costs with the total amount of fine and costs totalling $6,033.31.
Mr McGrane said to the Accused if he keeps coming back to court his fines would increase further.