Dog control — definition of "rush" — dangerous dog — unmuzzled — Dog Control Act 1996, ss 33E & s 57A(1)(a)(i) — Agnew v Police, High Court, Christchurch, 13/5/1994, Tipping J. The defendant faced four charges relating to his dog, the allegation being that the dog "rushed" at a person in a public place on two occasions and causing those people to be endangered. The defendant's dog was classed as a dangerous dog, meaning it was required to be muzzled when in public. The remaining charges on each occasion were that the dog was not muzzled in accordance with s 33E of the Dog Control Act 1996 ("the Act"). The first allegation was that the dog had moved towards and growled and snapped at the victim, who had asked the defendant to move along from outside a shopping complex in the course of his duties. On the second occasion, a constable observed the defendant's dog barking and lunging at another person who had been walking her dog but who had not laid a complaint. The Court had to determine whether the dog "rushed" at the people, which meant intent on the part of the dog to focus on that person. The Judge preferred the evidence of the victim and the constable, who had no emotional tie to the dog. Evidence from an animal control officer showed that the defendant's dog had been classified as a dangerous dog in a different locality, but that this classification applied nationwide due to the provisions of the Act. The defendant was found guilty on all charges. Judgment Date: 15 January 2020.