Reserved decision — remitted by the High Court — dog attack — owning or possessing a dog that attacked other persons — serious injury — destruction of dog — exceptional circumstances— Dog Control Act 1996, s 58 — Sentencing Act 2002, ss 35, 106 & 107 — Z (CA 477/2012) v R [2012] NZCA 599 — Auckland Council v Hill [2020] NZCA 52 — Telford v R [2023] NZHC 31 — R v Burns [2001] 2 NZLR 464 — Wilson v Police HC Napier AP60/94, 13 February 1995. The defendant had applied for a discharge without conviction after her dog had attacked a veterinary surgeon, causing serious injury. The defendant had previously had the charges against her dismissed, but the prosecution had appealed the decision to the High Court which had convicted her and remitted the matter back to the District Court for sentencing. The charges arose out of an incident where the defendant was unaware of the vet's policy to keep dogs in the car until the vet could assess the danger of the situation. The victim had come out of the clinic and the dog then latched onto the victim's arm causing serious damage. For a discharge without conviction to be granted, the Court must be satisfied that the consequences of conviction are out of all proportion with the gravity of the offending. The Court assessed the offending as moderately serious, and there was nothing to suggest that the consequences would be out of proportion. The application for a discharge without conviction was dismissed and the defendant was ordered to pay the victim $2,894.50 in reparation. As there were no exceptional circumstances to the offending, an order was made for the destruction of the dog. Judgment Date: 21 August 2023