Changes To Qld Laws After Victorian Attack

[KatrinaM]

http://www.news.com.au/new-queensland-laws-include-prison-penalty-for-negligent-dog-owners/story-e6freoof-1226167504458

New Queensland laws include prison penalty for negligent dog owners

by: Renee Viellaris

From: The Sunday Mail (Qld)

October 16, 2011

1:00AM

DOG owners will be sent to their own cage - with up to 10 years in jail - if their pet attacks or kills another person.

Tough new state laws have been drafted that for the first time include a prison penalty for negligent dog owners.

Owners that fail to have a fence or an appropriate fence - or the guard dog they have is inappropriate - will face jail time if their dog attacks.

Attorney-General Paul Lucas said Queensland's proposed laws were sparked after this year's horrific death of Ayen Choi, a four-year-old Victorian girl mauled by a pit bull terrier.

The Sunday Mail revealed in July that more than 2500 dog attacks were being reported in Queensland each year - about 50 a week. Most of the victims are under five years.

Current laws allow authorities to fine dog owners up to $30,000 if their animal goes rogue.

FOLLOWING Melbourne's pit bull tragedy it has been revealed over a third of Queensland councils have banned or will no longer register the breed.

But while there were provisions that may allow for convictions for manslaughter under the criminal code, Mr Lucas said he wanted a specific provision for irresponsible owners.

"This kind of thing is similar to what occurred many years ago when a specific provision for dangerous driving was provided so courts did not need to rely on manslaughter," Mr Lucas said.

"If they're (owners) not properly controlling their pet and it maims or kills a child or an adult, then they could be criminally liable for their action."

The draft legislation, cited by The Sunday Mail, sets out that owners will have to manage their dogs and have regard to circumstances such as the past conduct of their dog, its training and its temperament; whether the restraint of the dog, if any, was appropriate in the circumstances, and whether the type of dog used to protect people or premises was appropriate.

Mr Lucas said that responsible dog owners would not be captured under the laws.

"The amendment is not intended to cover situations where owners have taken all steps to ensure a dog is secure and safely managed," he said.

"But where a dog is left to roam the streets, and an owner has taken no steps to control the animal or ensure it is appropriately enclosed, then under this amendment the owner could be criminally liable if the dog attacks or kills someone and face up to 10 years in jail."

Consultation will be held with councils and the RSPCA. The amendments do not apply to law enforcement.

[mita]

Just going by that newspaper article, it seems they've switched focus from hunting breeds down, to putting irresponsible owners on the spot. Which could even be jail.

And responsible owners are being recognised....those who train, contain and generally manage their dogs. The statement that these people & their dogs won't be unfairly targeted is hopeful.

[WreckitWhippet]

Great for those who own dogs that attack and injure whilst out of their own yard, they will hopefully be punished accordingly but given that many incidents occur within the family home/yard by the "family" dog or in a home/yard where the dog is known to the victim, what are they going to do about that ?

[sandgrubber]

Long overdue!

I still want to know what happened to the owner of the dog who killed Ayen Chol. . . . and who rumor says stood by and watched it happen. It's sad to think that the new laws won't apply to the scum bag.

Oops . . . didn't read carefully. This is QLD not VIC.

Edited October 17, 2011 by sandgrubber

[Tempus Fugit]

You can view the draft legislation here. Note the web page allows readers to make comments.

[GeckoTree]

This seems to be only about roaming dogs? dogs oft with no registration or owner details on any record?

Currently there are defences for dog attacks under the cats and dogs management act

194. Relevant person must ensure dog does not attack or cause fear

195. Prohibition on allowing or encouraging dog to attack or cause fear

196. Defences for offence against s 194 or 195

ANIMAL MANAGEMENT (CATS AND DOGS) ACT 2008 - SECT 196

196 Defences for offence against s 194 or 195

(1) It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against section 194 or 195 for the defendant to prove--

(a) the dog attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, the other person (the complainant) or the animal--

(i) as a result of the dog being attacked, mistreated, provoked or teased by the complainant or the animal; or

(ii) to protect the defendant, or a person accompanying the defendant (the accompanying person), or the defendant's or accompanying person's property; or

(b) for an attack on an animal, the dog was engaged in hunting the animal on private property when the offence happened; or

© for an attack on stock, the dog is a working dog and the offence happened when the stock were being worked; or

(d) the dog is a government entity dog and when the offence happened the defendant was acting within the scope of employment by the government entity; or

(e) when the offence happened, the dog was a security patrol dog carrying out that function under the Security Providers Act 1993.

(2) In this section--

dog patrol category, of functions of a security officer, has the meaning given by the Security Providers Act 1993, schedule 2.

security officer has the meaning given by the Security Providers Act 1993, section 7.

security patrol dog means a dog used in the dog patrol category of functions of a security officer.

[Chris the Rebel Wolf]

I am in support of this, though tentatively. I too find it encouraging that the focus seems to be moving toward responsible dog ownership as opposed to a Pitbull blanket ban, though of course they were mentioned. I have no problems with the owners of attacking dogs being punished - they are legally liable for their animals and the punishment should reflect that. Hopefully this will mean owners and councils alike will step up and ensure safety is being taken seriously.

[Liath]

If it helps to prevent deaths or severe injury to people then I am for it but I doubt it will make irresponsible dog owners all of a sudden responsible. It will make already responsible owners review their fencing etc and to ensure their dogs do not roam the neighbourhood.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Liath

[sandgrubber]

Here's the main part of the changes (taken from the link Tempis Fugit provided . . . thank's TF). I've bolded the sections I think are most interesting. I'm not sure whether they're all new. I like the inclusion of age, strength, size, medical condition, training, past history, etc. before breed in the definition of "manage a dog dangerously".

I think the law would be better if there were a lesser but still serious punishment for people who manage a dog dangerously without causing death or GBH . . .

Consultation Draft

5 Insertion of new s 334A

Chapter 29—

insert—

‘334A Dangerous management of a dog

‘(1) A person responsible for a dog who, by an act or omission,

manages the dog dangerously causing the death of or grievous

bodily harm to another person through an attack by the dog

commits a crime.

Maximum penalty—10 years imprisonment.

‘(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the dog is a government

entity dog and the person responsible for the dog is acting

within the scope of engagement or employment by the

government entity.

(3) In this section—

government entity means—

(a) the State, the Commonwealth or another State; or

(b) an instrumentality or agent of the State, the

Commonwealth or another State.

government entity dog means a dog—

(a) owned by a government entity or a person engaged or

employed by the entity; and

(b) used for a purpose under an Act of the Commonwealth

or a State.

Examples—

• a corrective services dog under the Corrective Services Act 2006

• a drug detection dog, explosives detection dog or police dog under

the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000

manage a dog dangerously means manage a dog in a way that

is dangerous having regard to all the circumstances

including—

(a) for the owner of the dog—the way the owner manages

the owner’s proprietary rights in relation to the dog; and

(b) the age, size and strength of the dog; and

© the past conduct of the dog, its training and its

temperament; and

(d) the current medical and physical condition of the dog;

and

Consultation Draft

(e) the breed of the dog; and

(f) whether the restraint of the dog, if any, was appropriate

in the circumstances; and

(g) for the use of a dog to protect persons or

premises—whether the use of the dog was appropriate

in the circumstances.

person responsible for a dog means a person who has control

or custody of the dog, including an owner of the dog.

[KatrinaM]

Besides the increased penalties the biggest difference I can see is that police will be the ones dealing with dog attacks now rather than local council. I don't think police will be as easily pushed around as local dog catchers.

[WreckitWhippet]

Besides the increased penalties the biggest difference I can see is that police will be the ones dealing with dog attacks now rather than local council. I don't think police will be as easily pushed around as local dog catchers.

When NSW overhauled the DD legislation, after the death of Tyra Keune, one of the things the legisaltion did, was give Police the power to act, as the Rangers would normally do, in the instance of a dog attack.

I found that very usefull, in the instance of an after hours attack, they were on the ball and dealt with the issue very quickly.

The powers are still shared in NSW and the Council are still primarily responsible for dealing with dog attacks.