Dog attack: Legal loophole allows dog to go free - 8/02/2007A biased TVNZ 'Close Up' programme aired last evening has given an entirely false impression of the Wanganui council's position on dog attacks, Mayor Michael Laws said today.
It was another example of shoddy journalism by TVNZ who were provided a copy of a legal opinion from Kensington Swan, Wellington, but preferred not to adequately represent it.
I want to first make it clear that I am as unhappy as the complainant Carol Jones that the dog is still alive. I have made that clear to her on a number of occasions, not least because we have a zero tolerance policy on dog attacks.
But we must observe the law. And the law is an ass on this point – who owned the dog, legally, when it attacked Mrs Jones? She ran boarding kennels and the dog had been in her care for some weeks and she was definitely in control of the dog the day it attacked.
If Mrs Jones had immediately requested the dog be destroyed, then it would have been. However she had far more urgent priorities after the injuries she sustained.
It then transpired that the dog was actually the property of the Pleasants. We required a court order to destroy the dog, under the Dog Control Act 2002, which would have required us to prosecute the owner. The "owner" was not the Pleasants, it was actually Mrs Jones.
We would have been placed in the ludicrous situation of prosecuting the victim.
Strict conditions have been imposed upon the dog. It may not leave the Pleasants’ property and other housing conditions have also been set. A legal loophole in the Act – not council inaction – has led to this unfortunate position.
As for Mrs Jones' unfortunate allegation that the Pleasants are not being prosecuted because Mr Pleasants is a prominent member of the RSA, I can only say it does Mrs Jones no credit. This council regularly issues its own mayor with parking tickets – it takes no notice of personality but policy and the law.
Kensington Swan legal opinion | 
