Dog Attack – Ringwood

This is a case study on a dog attack in Ringwood involving a husband and wife who each had one dog registered in their names. The case resulted in a financial penalty with no conviction recorded.

What was alleged to have occurred?

We acted for clients who are husband and wife and whose dogs were alleged to have engaged in an attack of their neighbour’s dog. The incident resulted in the death of that dog and, consequently, both clients were charged with the same charges based on the same set of facts:

1. Pursuant to s 29(4) of the Domestic Animals Act, their dogs did attack or bite another dog causing death; and
2. Pursuant to s 24(2) of the same Act, their dogs were found at large outside their premises between sunset and sunrise.

It was agreed that there was a hole on the shared fence between the two adjacent properties, and this was how the two dogs entered the neighbour’s backyard and committed the attack.

The case was heard at the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court and our lawyer Zoe Zhou represented the client.

Prior to the court, we sought full instructions and personal background from the clients and clarified their key priorities being as follows:

1. to avoid any convictions being recorded; and
2. to avoid any orders or declarations made against their dogs.

We also sought their explanation as to how the dogs entered the neighbour’s property and attacked the other dog. We engaged with the prosecution with a view to refining the facts of the case the clients pleaded to. A resolution was ultimately reached prior to the Court date with the Council agreeing that they would not be submitting for a conviction or orders calling for the destruction of the dogs. The clients instructed us to enter pleas of guilty on that basis.

What happened at court?

On the day of the court, we made submissions on behalf of the clients. It was highlighted that both clients had been responsible dog owners for almost 30 years, and have never had any incidents before this matter, nor any since. Neither dog had a history of aggression that ought to have put them on notice that the dogs required special attention. They had previously been unaware of the hole in the fence. They took the step of removing the dogs from the property to their family farm which has a wire, secure fence.

It was submitted that the clients had addressed the risk they posed sufficiently. Submissions were also made regarding their lack of priors and otherwise good character in support of not having to record a conviction. This was readily accepted by the Court.

The Court however was considering making an order on its own motion for the destruction of the dogs. We were responsive with forceful and persuasive submissions in urging the Magistrate not to take that path. The dogs were incredibly special to the clients and their family. One of the dogs acted as a support dog to one of their children who was experiencing challenges, and on that basis, would have been devastating and traumatic had the Magistrate made the orders.

What was the result of this case of dog attack in Ringwood?

Thankfully, we were successful in persuading the Magistrate not to make an order for the destruction of the dogs. The Court fined each party $500, plus statutory costs. There was no conviction recorded.

Zoe Zhou

DISCLAIMER: This is a real case study of an actual case from our files. Details pertaining to the client have been changed to protect their privacy. The sentence imposed and the charge have not been altered. These case studies are published to demonstrate real outcomes and give an indication of possible tariffs in Court. We do not guarantee a similar case on these charges will get the same result. Please note that we post results at our discretion, therefore while many case studies are average results, others are notable for their exceptional outcomes. PUBLISHED 12/03/2025