There were no apologies.

There were no late items.

MEETING HELD THURSDAY 23 MARCH 2006

RESOLVED

THAT the minutes of the meeting of the Hearings Committee held on Thursday 23 March 2006 be taken as read and confirmed.

HC06/12 Carmine/Bubb CARRIED

Reports of the matters dealt with by way of delegation from 1^st March 2006 were submitted separately for the Committee’s information.

RESOLVED

THAT the reports of delegated matters be received.

HC06/13 Gordon/Carmine CARRIED

On 23 March 2006 a Notice under Section 33(A) of the Dog Control Act 1996 was served on Mr D J Carey of 34 Kaihere Road, Ngatea.

An appeal has been lodged.

A detailed report from the Dog Control Officer and supporting documents were attached.

A hearing was scheduled for 9.15am. The hearing commenced at 9.15am.

Mr and Mrs Carey (Applicants) and Mrs Burwell and her three children (Complainants) were in attendance for the benefit of the hearing.

In support of their objection to the classification, Mr and Mrs Carey tabled an additional statement which provided their interpretation of the two incidents in question and background information in support of the character of Mecca. Mrs Carey read out their statement for the consideration of the Committee.

Mrs Carey described the nature of their dog Mecca, stating that she is a female, brindle and black Staffordshire bull terrier of 14 months of age. Mrs Carey advised that this was the second complaint laid by the Burwell’s. The first complaint related to an alleged incident which had occurred in December 2005 where Mecca had been accused of acting aggressively towards the Burwell’s son whilst he was walking in the street. Following this incident, a complaint was laid resulting in the Assistant Dog Control Officer approaching Mrs Carey in the street outside her place of work to notify her that a complaint had been received regarding the aggressive behaviour of their dog, Mecca.

Mrs Carey stated that she was dissatisfied with the way in which the first complaint was relayed to her and that no explanation was provided regarding the process for dealing with a menacing dog classification and that only a verbal caution was received from the Assistant Dog Control Officer. Mrs Carey stated that if the situation had been explained properly to them at the time of this first incident, they would have ensured their dog was secure in the section.

This second complaint was laid by the Burwell’s again due to Mecca acting aggressively towards their daughter, Rhianne, whilst she was walking home from school on 20 March 2006. Since this incident, Mrs Carey stated that they have secured their section and have ensured that Mecca is tied up at all times.

Cr Gordon asked Mrs Carey how long they have owned their dog, Mecca. Mrs Carey stated that they have had Mecca for 14 months, since she was a puppy. Mrs Carey added that Mecca is rarely off the section and is chained up most of the day. The fencing of the section consists of a corrugated fence on one side, and two layers of netting on the other side which she considered was impenetrable. Mrs Carey stated that Mecca is completely secured on the section and advised that both the owners of properties either side of their home also own dogs. Sometimes she likes to play with the dogs next door and has made her way there before the fencing was constructed.

Cr Bubb asked if Mecca may have thought the neighbour’s property was part of her territory. Mrs Carey replied that they have indicated to Mecca many times that she is not to be on the neighbouring properties.

Mrs Burwell provided the background of the first incident involving her son. She explained that this recent incident on 20 March 2006 involved her daughter, Rhianne. Her daughter came home after school upset and informed her that Mecca had circled her in the street and had growled aggressively.

Cr Carmine asked Mrs Burwell how she felt about the fact that the Carey’s had secured their section. Mrs Burwell stated that in her opinion, this has made no difference to her as she still considered the dog was aggressive and could be dangerous to members of the public if she was ever out of the section.

The Dog Control Officer, Mr Murray Sexton spoke to his report stating that the first complaint was in December 2005 which involved Mrs Burwell’s son. The second complaint was by way of Mrs Burwell’s 13 year old daughter, Rhianne.

Mr Sexton stated that if the complainant believes that they were in danger at the time, the dog must be treated as menacing. If the classification is upheld, a process is initiated by a verbal warning. If a further complaint is received a Menacing Dog Classification is issued which requires that the dog must be muzzled in public. Any further complaints received following, require a Dangerous Dog Classification to be issued and the dog can be uplifted.

The Dog Control Officer stated that it needs to be considered if the complainant felt they were in danger and the dog acted in a menacing way. It is then up to the Committee to determine if the complainants were in danger.

Mr Sexton stated that the Carey’s have fenced their section. When Mecca is on her own property, the classification is not a problem; it is only when the dog is out in public.

Cr Gordon asked Mr Sexton if a menacing dog is allowed to be exercised in a designated area and does it need to be muzzled. Mr Sexton advised that the dog must be under control at all times but does not have to be muzzled in a designated exercise area. The dog owner must show more responsibility when using an exercise area. Any dog whether classified menacing or dangerous is legally allowed to use the exercise area freely.

It was asked if the Committee have the right to order the dog owner to have their dog de-sexed. It was advised that it is the Hauraki District Council Policy that all dogs classified as menacing must be de-sexed.

Mr Sexton stated that the he considered the dog was appropriately classified resulting from the incident concerned.

Cr Carmine asked Ms Rhianne Burwell to give a detailed account of the incident. Ms Burwell stated that she was walking down her road at 5.00pm and went to pat the neighbouring dogs which reside next door to the Carey’s property. At that time, the Carey’s dog, Mecca came running over and circled her growling aggressively. In seeing the incident, neighbouring women called the dog off and told it to go home.

Mrs Carey showed the Committee photo’s of the dog and reaffirmed that their dog is not aggressive.

Cr Carmine advised that she was satisfied that the Carey’s had taken all measures to secure their dog on their property.

The hearing adjourned at 9.50am.

The hearing reconvened at 10.15am.

The Chairperson advised that Council’s decision was reserved until it had considered the evidence presented and all other relevant matters.

After considering all of the evidence the Committee:

RESOLVED

THAT the report be received

AND THAT the Committee acknowledge that the event took place as described but consider that in the light of the action the Carey’s have taken since the event in fencing their property, the Committee will allow the objection and rescind the classification

AND THAT the Supervising Officer - Monitoring write to the dog owners informing them that they must adhere to the regulations in securing their dog on their property.

HC06/14 Gordon/Bubb CARRIED

The meeting closed at 10.40am.

CONFIRMED

D M Carmine

May 2006