Indeed, or how did it even get around to mentioning BSL? This case has nothing to do do with any specific breed, simply the fact that the owner knew the dogs was dangerous, was under obligation to keep it muzzled in public, keep it restrained, all of which she was unwilling and/or incapable of doing. In other words, a very irresponsible and dangerous dog owner.
Ms Walker appealled her sentence on 24 the April on the grounds it was excessive. At the hearing the following came to light,
quote
The offence was against section 194 the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). Subsection (1) imposed a duty upon the dog owner to take reasonable
steps to ensure the dog did not attack or cause fear to someone else or another animal. The appellant’s Alsatian dog, Benny, had attacked an elderly man, causing a
grievous injury. Mr Rowlands had the misfortune to be walking along the public footpath where the appellant had taken her dog to toilet. Without warning, Benny lunged at Mr Rowland and ripped his calf open. It was a gruesome injury that could have resulted in amputation or death. Mr Rowlands was hospitalised for an extended period. He underwent two operations. While awaiting a skin graft, the wound became infected and he was transferred from Nambour Hospital to the Royal Brisbane Hospital. He underwent two operations.
There is now a hole in his leg the size of a hand. He had been a fit and active walker. He now stays at home.
Although Mr Rowlands had no reason to foresee the danger of the situation, the appellant ought to have appreciated it and reasonably avoided the incident. Two
years earlier, the Greater Taree Council had declared Benny to be a dangerous dog. There had been two investigations into attacks upon smaller dogs. Later in September 2012, Benny had attacked and bitten a woman on the thigh. Stitches were required. The declaration of dangerousness was made in December 2012 and conditions were imposed upon Benny’s management. They included safe fencing and a warning sign on the property where he was housed, as well as the use of a leash and muzzle when he was outside of the property. Those were the conditions of the local council and operable when the dog was in the district. They also articulated a reasonable standard of care for the management of the dog to protect the public.
The appeal judge also said this "The appellant knew the dog had a propensity to attack. She knew it was dangerous. She knew it ought to be muzzled in public. The use of a muzzle was a minimum standard for the protection of the community at large. It seems that the appellant took Benny on holiday with no serioous prospect of complying with her duty under section 194. It was high risk conduct that caused severe injury and diminished the quality of a man’s life. It was a very serious example of the offence. As her honour identified, general deference was an important consideration for protection of the public. A strong and dangerous dog on the street without proper management poses a threat to anyone in the vicinity. It is a particularly chilling prospect for those most vulnerable, like children and the elderly. The message of high accountability ought to be unambiguous. The intention underlying section 194 is to make the offender accountable for the actions of her dog. "
As part of her defence it was submitted that she was stressed by a preliminary test for colon cancer, against a family history for that disease. She had suffered from depression for eight years and was adversely affected by her medication. Her doctor opined that the appellant’s judgment would have been impaired, and that “(t)his would have contributed to her taking out the dog unrestrained.” She also tried to put up a case she was not financial to pay the fine, but this was not substantiated.
I mean what a load of rubbish!
Nevertheless less the appeal was allowed for Mrs Walker to give fresh evidence in relation to her sentencing under Qld's Penalties and Sentencing Act.
Source http://archive.sclqld.org.au/qjudgment/2015/QDC15-087.pdf
