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

Wanganui District Council up a Creek

Without a paddle. Well one might be forgiven for starting to think that and it not just be wishful thinking. Firstly there’s the Auditor General who is definately not impressed with their performance and has passed my complaint regarding the shortfall of public funds onto Audit NZ who will naturally look closely at what has exactly gone on at the very next audit.

Then there is the hardworking Associate Minister of the Enviroment- Nanaia Mahuta who I have just received another letter from outlining the progress she is making in looking into the Wanganui District Council performance.

My officials have been in contact with the Wanganui District Council and have sought their understanding of the incident

The other issue which Central Government is also looking at closely is the claim made by Wanganui District Council that they were unable to persue the destruction of Pleasants’ dog.Nanaia Mahuta concludes her letter with this excerpt.

The Department of Internal Affairs is undertaking work that will examine the Dog Control Act 1996 and, in particular the legal requirements for the destruction of a dog. I have asked the Department to provide me with advice on this matter.

I also have an comprehensive complaint lodged with the ombudsman and as I understand it the decision on that should be forthcoming in the next few weeks.Whilst Michael Laws might state that the ombudsman is irrelevant the Wanganui District Council would be very wise to stop and take heed of what the ombudsman has to say and implement it if they dont want to involve this city in a lot of otherwise unnecessary expense.

Michael Laws claims the Ombudsman is IRRELEVANT!

I’ve had numerous people say to me “surely not even Michael Laws would be crass enough to make the claim that the Ombudsman is irrelevant”.Reproduced below is a cameo demonstrating exactly how far out of line the Mayor and his Council actually got.

Obviously Michael Laws along with the rest of the Wanganui District Council need to read the Ombudsmans Information Brochure.I have reproduced the opening explaination of the powers of an Ombudsman for the benefit of anyone who may need assistance in the future.

What can an Ombudsman do for you?

An Ombudsman investigates complaints about administrative acts and decisions of central and local government agencies.
An Ombudsman:

• Is an independent investigator

• has wide powers to investigate government agencies and to call them to account for their actions

• will give your complaint careful and just consideration

• will decide whether the agency’s acts or decisons were unreasonable,unfair or wrong

• may recommend a remedy where a complaint is found to be justified

Ombudsmen can investigate complaints against:

• government agencies,including those responsible for benefit payments,housing,health,immigration,passports,
  accident
  compensation,education,taxation and child support.

• local government agencies,including those responsible for roads,drainage,nuisance and animal control, planning and the granting and enforcing of building or resource consents.

  
  

  Hopefully the Wanganui District Council and Michael Laws will come to realise that there are recourses if they dont represent the community when they should.

Timeframe raises questions

Its all very well for the Wanganui District Council to claim the legal opinion proffered by Kensington Swan lets them off the hook -but the sad fact is that the timeframe doesn’t fit. The timeframe is as follows
Dog attack 16.7.06
Hearing 4.8.07
Release of dog from pound 15.8.06
Visit to Michael Laws office at his invitation 1.9.06
Voluntary opinion from Ombudsman 11.9.06
Requested opinion from Nanaia Mahuta 25.9.06
Kensington Swan report 27.9.06
I really have enough respect for the intellect possessed by the masses to be quite sure they will work it out for themselves.

Legal Loophole

What few would realise is that the much proclaimed legal loophole was only made so by Michael Laws and the Wanganui District Council in the process of trying to make the whole carry on look legal. The reality is that both Namaia Mahuta and the Ombudsman Beverley Wakem had already said very clearly that whilst I had the legal duties of an owner there’s no way I could be the owner. Now the only way to prove this is of course to take it to court and if thats the case so be it.The ombudsman’s opinion was readily shared with the council and Michael Laws who not only said it was irrelevant but immediately went off and got another opinion that of course fitted more with his Vision. Sorry folks. For those not in the know Michael Laws party is named Vision. Unfortunately its been running very much one eyed in my case. I had a good smile to myself when I included Michaels little e-mail to me saying that the ombudsman was irrelevant in the complaint to the ombudsman- I wish I could have seen her face. I would like to be a fly on the wall when Michael finds out just how unirrelevant the ombudsman is. I wonder how far outside of the code of conduct he is what with telling me Im deluded , the Ombudsman is irrelevant and Nanaia Mahutua doesn’t count .The other interesting point is that the only part of the legal opinion that is tested in court is the very part that the council and Michael Laws have chosen to ignore-which reads as follows
6.1. In our view the dangerous dog classification which Council have agreed with the owner in addition to the further restrictions requiring the dog essentially to be kept securely on the property in the care of Mr and Mrs Pleasants go a significant way to achieving the objectives of the Dog Act in this case. The point could also be made that should Mr and Mrs Pleasants breach any of the terms of the dangerous dog classification they are liable for prosecution and destruction of the dog MUST follow unless there are exceptional circumstances. In those circumstances the publics interest in further prosecution action in light of the unusual circumstances of the case is arguably limited.
This of course begs the following questions- is a 4ft/1.2m fence termed secure. Is taking the dog off the property staying within the agreement.
Is not paying 150% of the required dog registration staying within the classification and agreement.Is taking the dog off the property into public places unmuzzled staying within the classification.
Obviously the Wanganui District Council thinks so I wonder why?