Dog Attacks a Person – Offence for Person in Control

This is a case study on an animal offence arising from an incident wherein a dog attacked a person.

Our client was charged with being in control of a dog that attacked a person causing serious injury in contravention of s29(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994. This is a serious offence which carries with it a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units – almost $8,000.

What is alleged to have occurred?

The client was looking after an Australian bulldog for a friend who had moved interstate, until it was able to be transported to its owner. The victim in this matter was the owner of a pet transport business, who had attended our client’s house to collect the dog.

The allegation is that in the process of the victim placing a chain over the dog’s head as part of standard practice prior to transport, the dog lunged towards the victim biting their neck. This caused a large open wound in the victim’s throat and neck area.

Our client, who had the dog on the leash the whole time, immediately secured the dog inside the house and attended to the victim to provide medical assistance. The client then called 000 for an ambulance. The victim was transported to hospital and discharged later that night, requiring plastic surgery to repair the bite wound.

An officer from the local Council attended our client’s address for an interview. Our client was cooperative, informing the officer that the dog has become startled when the victim was placing the chain around its neck. The client also presented the dog to the local Council for an inspection.

What happened at court?

We acted on the client’s behalf at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court.

Our client had no prior criminal history and had made full admissions to the offending. Their response to the incident in ensuring the victim received appropriate medical attention was a positive reflection of their character.

The client was 33 years old and was employed full-time in a senior position with the state government, so obtaining diversion was important to avoid any negative impact on their employment.

Our client was not experienced in handling dogs, not having any pets of their own. At the time of the incident, the client was assisting a friend who had already moved interstate, to ensure the dog could be reunited with its owner.

The client was advised to obtain material in support of diversion that would demonstrate their good character and current personal circumstances. They obtained a character reference from their lifelong friend and also from their younger brother which both illustrated the high regard our client was held in amongst their peers.

What was the result?

Following submissions made to the Court, the Magistrate determined that our client was a suitable candidate for diversion. As a result, our client did not enter a formal plea of guilty and there was no finding of guilt against them. This was a fantastic outcome for a case involving a dog attacking a person as the offence made against the client could potentially impact their employment status and otherwise clean record.

As part of the diversion plan, our client was required to be of good behaviour for 12 months and reimburse the local Council for a court fee. Once this diversion plan is completed, the charges will be withdrawn at court.

Lachie Davine

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 22/11/2024