Appeal of Council decision to destroy dog — Dog Control Act 1996, ss 33 & 71 — risk to public safety. The appellant appealed a decision made by the respondent (the Waitaki District Council) to destroy his dog. In 2013, the appellant's dog was classified as menacing. The Judge noted the appellant had several infringements against him in relation to his dog, and on multiple occasions, allowed the dog to wander the streets unattended. In 2018, the Council received a complaint that the dog had bitten a repossession agent at a neighbouring property, however, no evidence was given on that in the proceeding. The dog was subsequently impounded, then re-homed with a woman. The appellant took back the dog, it was discovered wandering and was impounded again. The Council informed the appellant by letter that it was not satisfied he was willing to comply with the Dog Control Act and would not allow the dog to be re-homed. The appellant then removed the dog from the pound without permission. The Judge first noted that the letter sent by the Council to the appellant was likely to provide grounds to allow the appeal on its own, by automatically following a fixed policy, the Council failed to exercise its discretion as a matter of law in relation to their obligations under s 71A of the Dog Control Act. However, the Judge went on to consider the merits of the appeal so the parties could have a longer term solution. The Judge identified three questions relevant to the appeal: (1) What risk to public safety did the dog present, and had the risk increased since it was re-homed? (2) To what extent can the re-home owner be held responsible? (3) Would release of the dog to the new potential owner increase the risk to public safety? The Judge found in favour of the appellant on all three questions, noting the dog had behaved appropriately while in the care of the woman who had re-homed the dog and presented no increased risk to public safety. The fact that the appellant had behaved badly by taking the dog and allowing it to wander the streets again was not something she should be accountable for. The Judge allowed the appeal and ordered that ownership be transferred from the appellant and released into the control of the new owner who would re-home it. Judgment Date: 29 October 2018.