bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 First full hearing decision Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Review of restricted breed dog declaration Respondent:Banyule City Council Before: VCAT Senior Member I. Proctor Date of hearing: 6 March 2012 Date of order: 30 March 2012 Stayed for 28 days - as if the owner has the funds to go to the Supreme Court!! Dog: ACE (poor bloody Ace) soon to be no more! Said to be a lovely dog by both the Council and the RSPCA at the hearing but what the heck we will do our best to get him killed anyway! Contributor: RSPCA Victoria via RSPCA Victoria Chief Vet Dr Chris Thurgood FACT: The RSPCA has the contract for pound services for Banyule Council which WAS NOT declared at VCAT yet Dr Chris Thurgood was able to make a statement to the effect that ACE was a restricted breed. This is the same Council whose Local Laws Officers killed a dog by strangling it and the RSPCA inspectorate did nothing. Should I be cynical that the pound contract was later given to the RSPCA? It seems Thurgood was considered an expert by the VCAT member who continues to reference him in other hearings (in his absence) as if he is a demi-god. VCAT has a practice note on Expert evidence (Practice Note - PNVCAT2) Amongst its 8 pages it states that in the expert opinion report, amongst other requirements, the following must be included: 11 (d) reference to any private or business relationship between the expert witness and the party for whom the report is prepared. Thurgood's statement is included for reference: To be continued..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Council S46 Statement of reasons for the decision, submitted as evidence is attached. Note in particular, 2. Red nose 3. Almond coloured eyes neither of which are in the Standard Also note, for later consideration: "I conducted a close inspection of the dog including measurements" and "My inspection with measurements is contained in document Part B 3" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Here is his checklist (page 1) According to the VCAT decision which you will see later (be patient), Mr Mitchell made "careful enquiries about the classification process under the Standard" which must be why he used an old checklist from years ago that has only a slight resemblance to the new standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Page 2 of his checklist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 This is the Standard for restricted breed dogs in Victoria: http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/pets/about-pets/legislation-and-regulation/standard-for-restricted-breed-dogs Does it say, as in Mr Mitchell's checklist (relevant part inserted below) "Nose to stop equals stop to back of head" Oh no, it says "Muzzle: Slightly shorter in length to the skull (i.e. 2:3 ratio for muzzle:skull)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Evidence from Mr Mitchell As stated in decision " Mr Mitchell has 30 years experience in animal management" Really?????????? I wonder if the potential consequences of perjury have been made clear to Councils? I say potential because it appears Councils can just about do anything they like and get away with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 More evidence from Mr Mitchell "On the height issue, his recording of Ace's height as being 55 to 60 cm was an initial estimate based on visual inspection, not on measuring Ace" mmmmmm.... what did he say in his statement of reasons? Oh, yes "I conducted a close inspection of the dog including measurements" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Let's continue with some of Mr Mitchell's highly accurate evidence Let's look at the dog's ears. "Complies with all aspects, including rose shaped" Here is a photo. Sorry about the bad quality - Council picture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Dr Thurgood's evidence Agreed ears not rose shaped. However, complies due to meeting other points. What are the other points in the standard? "Generally they are set fairly high on the skull, not large and may be half pricked or rose shaped (i.e. folding backwards and exposing the inner burr of the ear)" I guess they are set high on the skull. Not large??????? If agreed not rose shaped, maybe half pricked? I don't think so! Evidence for the owner: Large, pendulous ending in round V shape. Not pricked, set high but definately not rose shaped - Does not comply VCAT Senior Member's decision: Complies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 Let's look at the Muzzle The standard says "Muzzle: Slightly shorter in length to the skull (i.e. 2:3 ratio for muzzle:skull). It is broad, deep and powerful with a slight taper to the nose and falls away slightly under the eyes. Mr Mitchell measured the dog as 1:1 but changed his evidence at VCAT to "Complies, first written measurements on the checklist were an estimate" So did he present new measurements? No. Was he saying the dog was 1:1, 2:3 or something else? Not reported Thurgood on the other hand concluded that on the basis of the photos it included the ratio was approximately 2:2.5. Member's interpretation "you describe this as conforming reasonably well. He agreed this was very important and he was not concerned (in terms of not meeting the Standard) about this criterion at the inspection" So, I am confused, on one hand it is very important but it doesn't matter that it doesn't meet the standard???? Evidence for the owner: "From Paul Mitchell’s measurements and the Council photos of the dog Ace, he has an approximate 1: 1 ratio for muzzle to skull. Not particularly broad, deep or powerful -very subjective" See attached Council photo Member's decision: Complies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 14, 2012 Author Share Posted April 14, 2012 To be continued Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeckoTree Posted April 14, 2012 Share Posted April 14, 2012 (edited) I'm so sorry Victorians, looks like a similar type check list scam that Qld used. Ace just looks like a generic sort of dog to me, not of this nor that, the same found wandering the road on the outskirts of the community where I picked up my dog from. Are they so cold hearted and fearful over a look of a dogs features that they will not give the option to at least let the dog move outside of the state? Edited April 14, 2012 by GeckoTree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
APBT Club of Aust Inc. Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 [quote name='GeckoTree' Are they so cold hearted and fearful over a look of a dogs features that they will not give the option to at least let the dog move outside of the state? Unfortunately, the laws do not allow that, at least some councils in Qld did allow the dogs to go interstate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huck house Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Snook , the Banyule weekly wrote that Ace was picked up after Christmas wandering around unregistered . Bslsux , ( for sure it does ) I am finding the thread hard to follow but will keep checking in for more information and understanding of the case. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
huck house Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Snook , the Banyule weekly wrote that Ace was picked up after Christmas wandering around unregistered . Bslsux , ( for sure it does ) I am finding the thread hard to follow but will keep checking in for more information and understanding of the case. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Let us consider Dr Chris Thurgood's expertise He has the title of Chief Veterinarian of RSPCA Victoria Veterinarians undertake a university undergraduate degree as their basic qualification. During the course they are exposed minimally to information on the various breeds of dogs. As a Veterinary student they do not receive any training in differentiating breed characteristics in crossbred dogs by visual means or any other means. Therefore the training veterinary graduates receive in obtaining their veterinary degree does not make them competent at visually identifying the breed or parentage of dogs. The VCAT member states that "one of his duties at the RSPCA is to determine that dogs in the care of the RSPCA are a restricted breed dog. Restricted breed dogs may not be rehoused". That can hardly qualify him as an expert. After all, was he right or wrong? No-one will ever know. Those poor dogs didn't come with any genetic history. Very possibly, they may not have had any restricted breed dog in their ancestry. Therefore, he has been responsible for causing the death of hundreds if not thousands of dogs simply on the basis of unproven, unvalidated opinion. Surely determining breed parentage where the life of a dog is at stake should be scientifically validated to demonstrate a high level of accuracy and precision? The VCAT member states also that Thurgood was a "previous member of the previous Restricted Breeds Panel". Yes, he volunteered along with other RSPCA employees, some of whom had no qualifications at all, to sit on the previous Restricted breed dog review panels with the requirement to determine that the subject dog was or was not a purebred APBT. How many panels was he on in which his decision was later overturned? Two panels, involving three dogs. Two dogs subsequently went home as the result of a newly convened panel's unanimous decision that the dogs were NOT purebred APBTs. Why would the RSPCA continue to participate when they supposedly don't support this legislation (now that Hugh Wirth has been sidelined)? They (or their employees) no longer receive the $200 odd payment plus travel per panel sitting. Is it to garner favour with the Victorian Government or to enhance the likelihood of a continuing contract for Council pound services? A cynic might say so. In the latest fiasco their Chief Vet spent the majority of a day away from his duties. Were they paid by the Council or did donations "For all Creatures Great and Small (except the APBT)" fund his day in court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Snook , the Banyule weekly wrote that Ace was picked up after Christmas wandering around unregistered . Bslsux , ( for sure it does ) I am finding the thread hard to follow but will keep checking in for more information and understanding of the case. Thanks for posting. Again, I'm totally opposed to BSL in any form but the owner of Ace has to bear a massive portion of the responsibility here if their dog was not only unregistered (which gives the council the power to seize it and have it destroyed) but wandering at large and not contained on their property. That's just asking for the council to act on their new powers, especially with a dog that could in any way meet the standard used for "identifying" pitbulls. Although it doesn't excuse the manner in which Ace came to the Council's attention, Ace was previously registered with another Council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sumosmum Posted April 15, 2012 Share Posted April 15, 2012 Did the owners of Ace have a Solicitor with them at this hearing? Are they intending to take this to Supreme Court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 Did the owners of Ace have a Solicitor with them at this hearing? Are they intending to take this to Supreme Court? No to the solicitor. Unrepresented If they couldn't afford a solicitor at VCAT it is most unlikely they can afford the cost of going to the Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bslsux Posted April 15, 2012 Author Share Posted April 15, 2012 (edited) Hearing Decision pages 1-2 Includes Orders, Reasons and points 8 and 9 on The VCAT Hearing. G40-2012 Terei v Banyule City Council General List 2012 pages 1 to 2.pdf Edited April 15, 2012 by bslsux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now