Dog Attack- WDC Explaination

The WDC explaination of the release of the dog that so badly mauled me came by way of a reply to a letter (Debacle)which I had published in our local paper .

Selfish Attitude

The recent dog issues further illustrate to me why a law change is required.

I believe the court needs to be removed from the equation and councils empowered to make decisions over destruction just as they do on classifications. Councils have a dog policy but the court is able to, and often does overturn it.

As hearings committee chair in the previous council I adjudicated the mediation process over one horrific attack that severely maimed the person looking after it to the point where hospitalisation was required. I am sure this is one of the cases Carol Jones refers to in her recent letter.

The absentee owner of the dog refused to voluntarily put it down and could not be persuaded to change this selfish attitude.

In this instance if the law was followed and prosecution sought the person charged would have been the person attacked. they were the temporary dog owner. How fair is that?

The decision that I had to make was to seek destruction and risk a judge declining allowing a dog to go free ( subsequent legal opinion indicated this would have been extremely likely) or make a decision that endeavoured to give the public some protection.

The latter was chosen and the offending dog given virtual house arrest by being confined to the owner’s farm.

This dog must never be allowed out in public and the house arrest decision removed any risk of the court possibly releasing it. Council officers must enforce this ruling.

It was not possible to speak out at the time as committee members must not have an opinion but judge cases on the facts presented. To speak publicly on issues could be deemed predetermination or bias putting future hearings at risk.

MURRAY HUGHES
Westmere

Footnote: The owner referred to here is
Graeme Pleasants President of the Wanganui RSA and one of the cities 12 ambassadors- the dog was unregistered at the time referred to in this letter!
The registered owner is Dot Pleasants -his wife!

Dog Attack- Council ineptness or corruptness

You decide. Posted below is the questions I asked the Wanganui District Council and their responses

Synopsis of the Dog Attack

On the 16th July 2006 I was badly mauled by a German Shepherd dog that I was exercising. The dog bowled me to the road and continued mauling me until my husband arrived on the scene and pulled the dog off. He was exercising the second dog owned by the same owners Dot and Graeme Pleasants (President of the Wanganui RSA and one of the 12 ambassadors to Wanganui City).I ended up in hospital for 3 days with 85 stitches.The medical care I received was excellent but it still took 7 weeks for the wounds to heal.A subsequent “hearing” held by the Wanganui District Council released the dog to the community with a robust agreement which if it had been enforced would have been adequate. Unfortunately the agreement was never enforced.( something I am determine to change)The main requirements of the agreement included the requirements of the dangerous dog act including some extra restrictions such as the dog was only ever to be handled by the owners and never to leave the property except under extenuating circumstances. The Wanganui District Council are satisfied with the dog being secured by a 1.2m fence- Ive dealt with pugs and foxies that would make light of a fence that height never mind a very dangerous dog.Both dogs were unregistered. The fine for not being registered was never charged ($300 per dog) The requirements of the existing agreement also listed a registration of 150%-mysteriously a normal fee was charged with a neutered rebate being given before the dog was even neutered.The owners were given a good owner rebate on the second dog -they weren’t entitled to it.

The interesting legal situation is that as the dog in question was unregistered and therefore did not have an owner it could have been easily euthanaised by the Council- a fact they never acquainted me with at the time.(I wonder why). I might add that I would still have waited for the owners decision and believed that they would do the right thing .How wrong can you be. After the hearing when I rightly made it very plain that I was disastisfied with the Councils inaction they then went and got a legal opinion which stated that I was the owner – something voluntarily disputed by the ombudsman who has yet to give a full legal opinion on the actions of the Wanganui District Council. The question of ownership has also been disputed by the Associate Minister for the Enviroment Nanaia Mahuta

The legal opinion proffered by Wellington firm Kensington Swan also included the very sound advice that the dangerous dog act and the agreement must be enforced and their opinion was actually based in good part on this premise. For reasons that now may be dawning on the reader the Wanganui District Council had chosen to ignore this advice. I wonder why?

Since then Nanaia Mahuta has become involved and as a result the WDC now have to check on the dog in question every week for the rest of its life. Now you have to ask yourself how much money has the WDC actually saved the ratepayer. If the dog attacks someone else other than the owner and there is fairly good chance of that as the owners refuse to recognise that the dog is dangerous not only will the owners then be liable for a fine of around $20,000 and/or 3 years in jail but the Wanganui District Council can expect to become embroiled in it all also. The other interesting aspect is that as the dog is registered in Dot Pleasants name and not her husbands ( he distanced himself rather promptly- I wonder why?) it will be her that will shoulder the charges- what some husbands will do to their wives.

Footnote: All postings and proof are still present on the site- albeit archived

Lies and yet more Lies

Relevant excerpts of Stuart Hylton’s report to Michael Laws dated the 17.8.06 are set out below.
So if you believe the report as the dog was released on the 15.8.06 even though Pleasants couldn’t get out because of the road conditions until the 18.8.06 – REALLY– and even stranger they managed to sign an agreement on the 17.8.06 that they were nowhere near –HOW– do share it with us Stuart.
I was notified of the decision as per the e-mail below 15.8.06
I am sure any court is going to greet these discrepancies with some considerable scepticism.
Footnote: Waikupa Rd., was closed to traffic 11.8.06

Inefficiency or Something More Sinister?

There is a considerable discrepancy in the paperwork covering the release of the dog which attacked me. The dog was released on the 15.8.06 as per the Enviromental receipt yet the S31 ( dangerous dog classification) wasn’t served until the 16.8.06 and even stranger the agreement wasn’t signed until the 17.8.06 by Pleasants and the 18.8.06 by Stuart Hylton (Agreement or Window Dressing)

Even stranger I have a witness who espied Stuart Hylton in the part-time ranger’s silver ute on the Waikupa road (20.10.06) the day I insisted that I be supplied with a signed copy of the agreement rather than an unsigned copy.Very unusual to supply an unsigned copy of an agreement when a signed copy exists.

Now wouldn’t you expect all the paperwork to be done on the one day and certainly before the dog was released.

Even stranger is the fact that Kensington Swan were also supplied with an unsigned copy of the agreement

after the agreement between the parties has been signed and (we assume) implemented

Surely after what went on i.e. hearing etc the Wanganui District Council wouldn’t have released the dog and not done the paperwork until I got on their tail in October-surely not

Promises! Promises! Promises!

If it wasn’t bad enough being so savagely attacked by a dog unjustifiably ( there is no justification for this degree of attack anyway) the whole miserable episode has been grossly accentuated by the Wanganui District Council inaction and even worse then promising action and not seeing the promise through.

A glaring example of this is after supplying Michael Laws with all the information on the attack and the hearing he then invited me to his office to discuss the matter.As my husband still couldn’t face even talking about the attack I took a good family friend.
(see statement below).

(name removed )
Michael Laws didn’t want to discuss keeping the community safe all he wanted to talk about was how he was going to put the dog in question down. I was told that a letter asking if I wanted a review would be forthcoming the following week and on my assertion that I did want a review , another hearing would take place and the Council would then seek the destruction of the dog.Of course Michael Laws reneged on this and went off and got the now famous or infamous legal opinion.

That wasn’t the only time that the Council changed tack- when it became apparent that Pleasants had no intention of adhering to the agreement they had signed a witness came forward and was spoken to by David Warburton. The cameo posted below I think says it all:
I am sure that viewers will agree that the Wanganui District Council performance for whatever reason has been abysmal and one is left wondering how these same people would fare out in the real world of employment?

Agreement or Window Dressing

The agreement struck between Pleasants and the Wanganui District Council is reproduced as follows:

The agreement had it been correctly enforced was robust enough to keep the community safe which is the first duty of any Council.
It should be appreciated by the owners that the grim reality is that the agreement they have signed means that they can never go away and leave their dog in the care of anyone else.