Page 954 - Week 04 - Wednesday, 31 March 1993
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I am sure that most people would not hamper dog control unit officers as they attempt to seize a dog after an attack. However, the Act still allows this as a possibility. For example, there is nothing in the current Act to stop friends or neighbours harbouring a dog suspected of an attack for its keeper until fear of seizure has passed. This loophole should now be closed.
I now come to consideration of one of the major amendments - the removal of the discretion of the Registrar of Dogs as to where a dog is kept while a case is filed against it. I was shocked and not a little disquieted by the fact that a dog which had allegedly bitten three people was returned to its owners while a case was prepared against the owners. There seemed little dispute that the dog concerned had been at large, which in itself is an offence under the Act. This is one part of the Act about which stronger measures need to be taken by the registrar. After all, dogs at large are impounded. Why, then, should dogs which are suspected of attacks be returned to the custody of the person who is facing charges? I know that the premise is "innocent until proven guilty", but in the case of alleged attacks I am sure that the community would rather err on the side of caution.
Under this amendment, dogs will be impounded in facilities specifically designed for that purpose. I have made provision for the possible use of alternative facilities should the Registrar of Dogs feel that it is necessary. However, under no circumstances should a dog be returned to its keeper until it is proven innocent or the court rules that there are exceptional circumstances for not destroying it. Under this latter scenario, I would expect that magistrates would make similar rulings to those now made and which would address the care and control of the offending animal.
In addition, dogs kept while awaiting court consideration of charges against their keepers will be kept at the expense of those keepers. This is to allow the registrar to recoup the costs of impounding an animal that is eventually proven to have attacked. If there is no case to answer or if it is decided not to proceed with the prosecution, the dog can be returned without charge. However, the provisions for charging for the impounding of a dog at large will continue. Further amendments to paragraphs 31(1)(a) and (b) are to allow the Registrar of Dogs more time to prepare cases. I understand that the complexity of modern court processes and the number of cases that have to be dealt with under this Act have led to the current constraints in time being a severe constraint on the registrar. There will now be a 28-day period for charges to be prepared and laid and a maximum of 30 days for which a dog can be held before release if no charge is laid.
The commencement provisions of this amendment Bill state that it shall come into effect from 1 July 1993. There are several reasons for this provision. Firstly, there is a need, in my estimation, to give the Registrar of Dogs, owners of dogs currently facing prosecution, and the courts time to prepare for change. It would be unfair, in my estimation, to change the rules without adequate notification. The registrar may make different decisions about which owners will face prosecution and under which sections of the Act she would like to proceed following these changes. Therefore, I feel that the registrar should be given sufficient time to advise dog owners facing prosecution of what the possible outcomes for their dogs are and also to advise owners of the costs of impounding dogs which are seized with a view to bringing forward prosecutions for alleged attacks.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .