Hounded By The Law

[Mila's Mum]

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-...1013-16jyy.html

OUR local Stasi is Randwick City Council and we lost our defence in Waverley Court against them.

Our crime? Carrying our 4.8-kilogram dog - that's smaller than most cats - across 10 metres of sand. Our effective fine? $1210. Carrying your dog? Yes, because the new signs at the entry of Gordons Bay at Clovelly explicitly say, ''No Dogs on Beach or in Water''.

Our dog was not on the beach. She was on the rocks adjacent to the beach and the water. The magistrate acknowledged that this was a strong argument but found that, under cross-examination, my wife had carried our dog across the prohibited sands, all 10 metres of them. Therefore the council's fine stood, for $330 plus court costs of $80, plus the council's lawyer's fee of $800. The magistrate did throw us a bone, in that he pared down the lawyer's bill from $1200.

So, despite my wife's plea for reason and our record of conscientious dog-ownership, substantiated in court by the fact that on one occasion last year we collected 73 bags of dog poo that people had weirdly tied to the fence at the end of Burrows Park (who are these people?), not to mention our honesty (we could have told the ranger that our dog went to the rocks directly from the path, and was not carried across the forbidden sands), we are effectively fined more than $1200! Never mind being further penalised by a day in court, as foolishly we decided to stand up for reason. After all, we did have a fine for $330 for having our dog in a non-prohibited area. Why would we just pay up?

Penalised? Yes. Our case was listed for 10am we were heard at 2.45pm. Custodial cases take precedence, so we had to sit for hours and watch the criminal flotsam drift through the courts. Assault, domestic violence, theft etc before the case of Dot the rescue dog was dealt with.

We adopted Dot from Monika's Doggie Rescue to the mutual benefit of all involved and we paid $300 for her. Our fine represents four dogs not adopted. Sydney has a problem with abandoned dogs but who is going to adopt them when dog owners are targeted as just another revenue source for local government?

So, as the officers of the state put down their tools at the end of another trying day as a force for good, do they have any twinges of self-doubt? They should, because effective fines of $1200 for carrying your dog 10 metres across a seaweed-strewn beach mean that a lot of dogs won't be adopted this year and that's a crying shame.

Pip Willis

Edited October 15, 2010 by Mila's Mum

[raz]

Who on earth is this guy? The Magistrate no doubt hammered him because he's a pain in the bum. A lot of dogs wont get adopted this year because he got fined $330? Puhlease. And he had to sit in Court all day with crims?

Edited October 15, 2010 by raz

[Zhou Xuanyao]

What plea for reason ? She did not use the most obvious defense. The dog was not on the beach, it was in her arms, SHE was on the beach.

[spottychick]

Were they planning on adopting 4 more rescue dogs this month?

I would've just paid the fine.

[Sheridan]

We adopted Dot from Monika's Doggie Rescue to the mutual benefit of all involved and we paid $300 for her. Our fine represents four dogs not adopted. Sydney has a problem with abandoned dogs but who is going to adopt them when dog owners are targeted as just another revenue source for local government?

Unless they were going to adopt another four dogs then this statement is completely illogical.

[sebastion 2]

:D How odd

[raz]

Unless they were going to adopt another four dogs then this statement is completely illogical.

The entire article is completely illogical. A Barking Mad person, perhaps?

[Sheridan]

Hadn't thought of that, Raz. Barking Mad in name and nature.

[raz]

Hadn't thought of that, Raz. Barking Mad in name and nature.

Yep and they wonder why we have so many restrictions on dogs in public in this country. People carrying on like this Pip character just make it worse for dog owners who do the right thing.

[mita]

What plea for reason ? She did not use the most obvious defense. The dog was not on the beach, it was in her arms, SHE was on the beach.

I would have carried a small dog over the prohibited sand, too, thinking that it was not ON the beach. But looks like a 'carried' dog is still ON the beach, for legal purposes. Some wit here asked, what if she'd thrown the small dog OVER the forbidden sands to be caught by husband on the other side. Is OVER the beach (as in, thro' the air) also ON the beach, for legal purposes?

I never realised prepositions could carry so much weight.

[aussielover]

The dog shouldn't have been there in the first place- in her arms or not.

If the sign says no dogs, it means no dogs, not no large dogs that you can't carry in your arms to the adjacent rock areas.

People like this just give responsible dog owners who do the right thing a bad name

[poodlefan]

Of course if they'd shut up and simply paid the fine, they'd have saved 3 out of the 4 rescue dogs and not cost the tax payers $$$ in wasted court time.

No dogs means no dogs. Not "small dogs OK", "rescue dogs OK" and "dogs OK if owned by people who collect poo bags and think rocks can't be part of a beach".

Edited October 18, 2010 by poodlefan

[Her Majesty Dogmad]

I feel this was a terrible waste of money - I remember the little dog they adopted but they would not have adopted 4 more rescue dogs BUT they could have donated that money to either Doggie Rescue or another charity. I would have just paid the fine!

[Steve]

The dog shouldn't have been there in the first place- in her arms or not.

If the sign says no dogs, it means no dogs, not no large dogs that you can't carry in your arms to the adjacent rock areas.

People like this just give responsible dog owners who do the right thing a bad name

Yep.

[~Anne~]

It is no different to those I see holding their dogs in shopping centres and other areas where dogs are prohibited. I am not sure what part of the regulation these people fail to understand. Idiots.

[WreckitWhippet]

Sounds like an excuse from a kindy kid " I carried it, it doesn't count "

[Zhou Xuanyao]

''No Dogs on Beach or in Water''.

Sounds very clear to me.

This is what the law is about, this is what lawyers are for. They argue over rigorous interpretations all the time.

The government cannot have it both ways. Is rigorous interpretation only ok when it benefits the government and the prosecutor, but not ok when it benefits a citizen ?

Nice system of appeals. A ranger can give a fine for any reason he wants, and then if you have a problem with it, badluck.

Most people will not be willing or able to pay as they need a lawyer aswell, lest they be destroyed by the councils lawyer. And then on top they are criticized by people for enacting their right to appeal.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Lo Pan

[Tim'sMum]

They didn't say they were adopting more dogs....just pointing out that the amount of the fine was equivalent to the adoption of 4 rescue dogs, and it may put someone off from becoming a dog owner due the the amount and the ridiculous situation.

Perhaps people should actually read things...rather than 'read things into' what is written.

So what harm is there in carrying a small dog across a beach? The beach had a sign saying 'No dogs on the beach' so they carried it. The dog was not ON the beach.

Did the rocks have a sign.......'No dogs on the rocks.' ?

Do beaches now have to have sign saying....'No dogs on the beach, no dogs in the water, no dogs to be carried across the beach.'?

Is every tiny inch of our coastline banned to dogs?

In the same situation....I would have fought this in court too, purely because the Ranger, or who whoever gave them the fine, was being totally anal. It smacks of revenue raising rather than fining someone for breaking the law. Surely there are far worse crimes than carrying a tiny dog across a beach. :D

[raz]

Wow what a great thought - maybe people really should read rather than read into - try it sometime, TM.

And you would have fought this little episode of 'revenue raising' and clogged up the court list with something so inane? Really? You couldnt even fight a speeding fine, remember? And it isnt about the entire coastline - it's about a regulation for one particular council. What part of 'No Dogs On Beach' is so hard to comprehend? Maybe the ranger gave the dog owner a fine because he was a grouchy bloody smart aleck. Good on the ranger!

[bernym]

They should have just argued that it wasn't a dog but their 'baby' instead - they might have got off the charge for other reasons.

Surely anyone who can read and hasn't been knocked out by walking into the excessive amount of signs along beaches these days would know that dogs have restricted access on practically every public beach