DANGEROUS DOG CHECKLIST

If in the opinion of the officer investigating the case, the balance of evidence indicate that the community’s safety would best be served by a dangerous dog declaration being made then the officer should take the appropriate action.

As you are determining whether a Dog is Dangerous or not, the following checklist will ask you to gather evidence and other facts that need to be considered to maintain consistency in enforcement.

Does a complaint exist in relation to the dog?

Collect original details relating to the dog in question. i.e Complaint Sheet, witness statement etc.

Does the dog have a history of aggressive behaviour?

Gather all original details of previous history including paid and unpaid infringement notices, court prosecution files an complaint sheets.

Did the dog bite?

If the dog bit a person, obtain photographic evidence of any injuries along with witness statements. The dog does not have to bite a person, it could have bitten an animal or a bumper on a car.

Does the dog have an aggressive behaviour?

When you are trying to establish the general demeanor of the dog, try to do so when the owner is not present, as a dog will generally be more subdued when the owner is present. Qualified persons like Garth Jenning can give you a report as to the dog’s behaviour, and can also stand as expert witnesses if necessary.

Is the owner uncooperative?

Although this question is not relevant to the dogs behaviour, it certainly contributes to the likelihood of further incidents. If the owners is cooperative measures can be taken to remove the risk.

Is the dog capable of causing injury or damage?

It should be considered that a small dog chasing a person could cause injury by indirect contact ie. Tripping people up, running in front of cars or causing a victim to injure themselves.

It should also be considered that a large dog with no teeth may show all other characteristics of being dangerous but would not cause injury. Needless to say, that an attack may be provoked if the dog did chase a person.

Was the dog reasonably provoked?

Reasonable provocation and severity of the attack can be determined by such cases as James Martin –v- City of Stirling 1990, Jackson –v- Rothery 1984 and Bolz –v- Griffiths 1983 etc.

To summarise, it can be said that if a person is teasing a dog with a stick and the dog bites the person’s hand, it could be seen as reasonble provocation, conversely if a person is teasing a dog with a stick and the dog mauls the person, it was not reasonable provocation (other factors to not need to be considered – use references). It should also be noted that the term ‘reasonable’ is in the mind of a person, not in the mind of a dog.

Was medical attention required"

Did the victim receive first aid or treatment of any kind. The object of the next two questions is to ascertain the severity of the attack and type of injuries sustained. Take a statement off the person who administered the first aid.

Was the victim seen by a medical practitioner?

Is so collect a statement from the Doctor. The victim will need to contact the doctor for this purpose. If the person requires treatment from a doctor or hospitalisation, it is usually sever, if so seizure of the dog should be considered at the time of the report.

Was veterinary attention required?

If there was an attach on another animal, was it treated by a vet? If so, a statement should be taken from the treating doctor with photographic support. Again, this is to illustrate the severity of the attack.

In the event of a person being killed as a result of a dog attack, the Police and Department of Public Prosecutions would be investigating the matter, if an animal is killed as a result of the attack; details would need to be sought as to the cause of death, types of injuries. A postmortem can be carried out by a vet usually at the request of the Police.

Is a prosecution likely to succeed?

Evidence should be gathered from the beginning of an investigation for the purpose of instituting Court action. Even if you think it will not go to prosecution.

If a prosecution is unlikely to succeed, an appeal against a dangerous dog declaration may be upheld.

Is a further attack likely to occur, based on adequate means to effectively confine the dog to the premises?

Although the Act does not specify fencing as ‘adequate means’ if a dog is declared dangerous, Control Requirements may be implemented to keep the dog on the premises. If a dog is now kept behind good fencing what is the chance of another attack. (refer owner cooperation). Photographic evidence would support your claims or opinion relating to 5the fences of means to confine the dogs.

If a dangerous dog declaration is ceased due to this factor alone, there is still no lawful requirements for the dogs owner or person in charge of the dog to keep it there.

In your opinion is the dog dangerous?

Probably the most important question. If you think the dog is dangerous then it probably is, however, if you think it is not make sure you can justify how you arrived at your conclusion.