Without Conviction for Dog Not Confined to Premises

DogThis is a case that resulted in a financial penalty without conviction for Dog Not Confined to Premises.

Our client was charged with offences relating to two separate incidents involving her dogs. In the first incident, the dogs had escaped from her property and attacked another dog at the park causing a serious injury. In the second incident, her dogs dug under their fence and killed the dog in the adjacent property.

The client immediately surrendered her animals to the council and they were put down. She accompanied the first owner to the vet and has paid for all associated vet costs including check-ups. The client also wrote a letter of apology to the second owner and offered to purchase them a new dog.

Amelia Ramsay represented the client at the Ringwood Magistrates’ Court on the charge of Dog Not Confined to Premises.

Submissions were made to the court that focus on the mitigation of our client’s culpability. We made sure to walk the court through all the efforts of the client to make amends with each owner. We also emphasised the fact that the council had not deemed the animals dangerous following the first incident, or attempted to advise the client on how she should be confining her dogs. We noted that the dogs were family pets and were around a small child on a daily basis.

It was also argued that at no time in 3 years of ownership had these dogs given rise to a suspicion that they might be dangerous. We argued that the client could not have done more to remedy the situation and has suffered a loss financially and emotionally in having her dogs put down.

Numerous excellent character references were also provided confirming the client’s good character and remorse.

Although the court disagreed on our submission that a good behaviour bond would be appropriate, a lenient fine was ultimately imposed without conviction for the charge of Dog Not Confined to Premises.


Amelia RamsayAmelia Ramsay

Admitted to practice in 2013, Amelia performs her work with care and professionalism ensuring clients understand the Court process, their charges and that they receive the best possible outcome.

Since joining Doogue + George, Amelia has represented clients in a broad range of indictable offences including, manslaughter (one-punch laws), foreign incursion and terrorism related offences, importation of drugs, cultivation of drugs, and sexual offences. Her work has included trials in the County and Supreme Court, plea hearings and contested committals as well as appeals to the Court of Appeal. Amelia works closely with barristers including briefing Queen’s and Senior Counsel. Amelia also appears regularly at the Melbourne Magistrates' Court and suburban courts as a solicitor advocate.

Check out Amelia's profile to know more about her legal background and specialisations.

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 05/02/2018