This is a case study involving an incident wherein a dog bit another dog with offences allegedly committed by the dog owner as a result (especially that the bite caused a serious injury). The matter led to a diversion as the sentencing outcome which was ultimately recommended by the Council to the dog owner (our client).
What was alleged to have occurred?
Our client’s dog bit another dog at the park, causing a laceration. As a result, our client was charged under the Domestic Animals Act as the owner of a dog that bit or attacked another dog causing serious injury. This charge is taken seriously by the Courts and carries a maximum penalty of 40 penalty units which, in 2024, means a fine of nearly $8,000.
What happened at court?
Our client had no prior convictions and worked in a professional industry. It was important to our client that their clear criminal record was maintained due to the impact of criminal charges on employment.
Before the incident that led to this charge, there had been no previous indication that our client’s dog would be aggressive towards other dogs. One of our client’s biggest concerns was that the incident involving their dog biting another dog could lead to an offence that would prompt council to seek an order to destroy the dog or have the dog declared dangerous.
The consequences of an order that a dog be destroyed is that a dog must be put down. Dangerous dog declarations can also have significant consequences. If a dog is declared dangerous, certain restrictions and obligations flow from that. For example, dangerous dogs must be kept muzzled and, on a lead, chain or cord when in public. They must also wear a specific collar at all times, and owners are required to display prescribed signs and comply with enclosure requirements. Naturally, these onerous requirements can have a real impact on people and their ability to look after their dogs.
With our client’s concerns in mind, our lawyers sought confirmation from the council that no such orders would be sought. After gathering detailed instructions from our client about the circumstances of the incident, we presented an argument to the prosecution that this case would be suitable for diversion.
Where a person accepts responsibility for the alleged offending, and both the prosecution and the Court agree, they may be placed on a diversion plan. This plan can last for up to 12 months and can include various conditions; for example, that the person be of good behaviour, make a donation, or complete counselling. The main benefit of diversion is that the charges are discharged upon completion of the plan and there is no finding of guilt recorded.
Our case for diversion included presenting character references to the prosecution, pointing out that our client had no prior indication that the dog in question was inclined to act aggressively, and illustrating the steps our client had taken to offer to assist with the injured dog’s veterinary bills.
The council agreed with our lawyer and recommended our client for diversion.
What was the result?
The Magistrate agreed that our client was suitable for diversion. This means that our client did not enter a plea of guilty, and there was no formal finding of guilt on the record in relation to this matter. Following completion of the diversion plan, the charge will be discharged. This is an excellent outcome for a charge that can carry significant fines.
This was a favourable outcome for our client in the circumstances. There was no separate penalty imposed in relation to our client’s dog.
Maya George
Maya is based in our Melbourne office and has experience in a wide range of criminal matters. Formerly a Judge's associate in the Criminal Division of the County Court, she has practised exclusively in criminal defence and believes every person accused of wrongdoing deserves strong and capable representation.Maya appears regularly in Court on behalf of clients charged with summary and indictable offences. In preparing each matter, Maya prioritises diligence, a non-judgmental approach, and providing clear and honest advice to her clients.
View Maya George's profile.
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 01/11/2024
