Victoria To Introduce Amendment To Bsl Legislation

[Aphra]

These amendments will, amongst other things, make pitbull crosses as well as pitbulls, restricted breed dogs.

Domestic Animals Amendment Bill 2013

The Minister for Agriculture and Food Security today (13th November 2013) made a second reading speech in Parliament of the Domestic Animals Amendment Bill 2013.

This Bill introduces some matters of interest to animal owners that will be debated in the coming sessions of Parliament -

• Amending the Domestic Animals Act 1994 and the Crimes Act 1958 and implementing two of the recommendations made to the Government by the Coroner in the inquest of four year old Ayen Chol
• Enable a Court to make an order disqualifying a person from owning a dog under certain circumstances
• The Bill also enhances the enforcement and administration of the declared dogs provisions and makes other minor machinery and technical amendments to improve administration of the Domestic Animals Act.

The Bill will place the emphasis firmly on responsible dog ownership for all Victorian dog owners.

[sandgrubber]

Huh? What does this mean in practice?

[RuralPug]

This bit sounds good to me:

 [list][*][size=2]Enable a Court to make an order disqualifying a person from owning a dog under certain circumstances[/size][/list]

but of course the devil is in the details...

[melzawelza]

Huh? What does this mean in practice?

It means that no longer does the Council have to prove that the dog is a Pit Bull. If the Council says it is, then it is - unless you can prove that it isn't. This will see hundreds and hundreds (more) innocent dogs killed, most of them mixed breeds without any 'pit bull' at all.

ETA: Basically, the dog is guilty unless proven innocent.

Edited November 13, 2013 by melzawelza

[tdierikx]

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck - it must be a witch... Monty Python and the Holy Grail...

*sigh*

[Simply Grand]

I was just reading through the bill, here's the link to the actual proposed amendment re. identification of restricted breed dogs:

http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubPDocs.nsf/ee665e366dcb6cb0ca256da400837f6b/9C767619F3953038CA257C210010E0F6/$FILE/571421bi1.pdf

29 Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs

After section 98A(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 insert—

"(4) If a declaration is made under subsection (1) to the effect that a dog is a restricted breed dog, then for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act, including a proceeding in the Tribunal, it is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a restricted breed dog if at the time of the making of the declaration—

(a) the authorised officer who made the declaration had completed a course of training for the purposes of making declarations under this section that had been approved by the Minister; and

(b) the Minister's approval of the course of training had been published in the Government Gazette.".

Edited November 14, 2013 by Simply Grand

[BlackJaq]

Wow. They literally learnt nothing. They are like the catholic church proclaiming that the earth is flat even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Would be funny if it wasn't so terrible for Vic dogs

Edited November 14, 2013 by BlackJaq

[Dame Aussie]

Wow. They literally learnt nothing. They are like the catholic church proclaiming that the earth is flat even in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary. Would be funny if it wasn't so terrible for Vic dogs

Yep, depressing

[tdierikx]

I'm never moving to Victoria...

T.

[WreckitWhippet]

I guess they are going to enact this because of all of the owners who have tied Councils up with VCAT.

[Simply Grand]

It's nice isn't it, too many people are exercising their right to protest a non-fact based decision, so we better get rid of that right...

[Dame Aussie]

I'm never moving to Victoria...

T.

I can't wait to get out.

[Steph M]

(a) the authorised officer who made the declaration had completed a course of training for the purposes of making declarations under this section that had been approved by the Minister; and

(b) the Minister's approval of the course of training had been published in the Government Gazette.".

Gee. I wonder what that entails.

ffs.

Wonderful place and time to be a dog owner of any shape or form...

[espinay2]

I was just reading through the bill, here's the link to the actual proposed amendment re. identification of restricted breed dogs:

http://www.legislati...E/571421bi1.pdf

29 Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs

After section 98A(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 insert—

"(4) If a declaration is made under subsection (1) to the effect that a dog is a restricted breed dog, then for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act, including a proceeding in the Tribunal, it is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a restricted breed dog if at the time of the making of the declaration—

(a) the authorised officer who made the declaration had completed a course of training for the purposes of making declarations under this section that had been approved by the Minister; and

(b) the Minister's approval of the course of training had been published in the Government Gazette.".

Wondering if this would stand up to Judicial Review?

Appears to breach several principles of Administrative Law. It is an ordinary requirement of natural justice that a person bound to act judicially base his decision 'upon material which tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issue to be determined': R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore, (1965) 1 QB 456 at 488 (affirmed in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi [1980] FCA 85; (1980) 44 FLR 41 at 66-67). While the standard of proof required in civil cases is based on 'the balance of probabilities' given it could possibly be argued that there is a degree of 'seriousness' in these cases (would need good argument here though could argue on the basis that the outcome is irreversable i.e. euthanasia of the dog) then it is possibile that Briginshaw could apply, meaning the more serious the allegation, the higher degree of probability is required (i.e. better evidence). Dixon J held that that the standard of proof should not be satisfied by 'inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect references.' (Briginshaw V Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 ). So basing a decision purely on the fact that someone has done a course and 'they say so', may not be a sufficient standard of proof under the requirements of the law, depening on how such testimony is viewed by the courts.

Perhaps a challenge to the actual law, rather than its application, is what is needed.

Edited November 14, 2013 by espinay2

[Zereuloh]

This is devastating for dogs everywhere.

Im so glad my beautiful staffy x is no longer with us to be a potential victim to these laws. I would be way to scared to ever adopt a unpapered bully breed or cross breed with these laws in place.

[Steph M]

I would be way to scared to ever adopt a unpapered bully breed or cross breed with these laws in place.

I have to admit I feel the same.

Which is sad as generally speaking are such lovely dogs and there's so many in need!

[melzawelza]

I was just reading through the bill, here's the link to the actual proposed amendment re. identification of restricted breed dogs:

http://www.legislati...E/571421bi1.pdf

29 Power of authorised officers to make declarations as to breed of dogs

After section 98A(3) of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 insert—

"(4) If a declaration is made under subsection (1) to the effect that a dog is a restricted breed dog, then for the purposes of any proceedings under this Act, including a proceeding in the Tribunal, it is presumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the dog is a restricted breed dog if at the time of the making of the declaration—

(a) the authorised officer who made the declaration had completed a course of training for the purposes of making declarations under this section that had been approved by the Minister; and

(b) the Minister's approval of the course of training had been published in the Government Gazette.".

Wondering if this would stand up to Judicial Review?

Appears to breach several principles of Administrative Law. It is an ordinary requirement of natural justice that a person bound to act judicially base his decision 'upon material which tends logically to show the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the issue to be determined': R v Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore, (1965) 1 QB 456 at 488 (affirmed in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi [1980] FCA 85; (1980) 44 FLR 41 at 66-67). While the standard of proof required in civil cases is based on 'the balance of probabilities' given it could possibly be argued that there is a degree of 'seriousness' in these cases (would need good argument here though could argue on the basis that the outcome is irreversable i.e. euthanasia of the dog) then it is possibile that Briginshaw could apply, meaning the more serious the allegation, the higher degree of probability is required (i.e. better evidence). Dixon J held that that the standard of proof should not be satisfied by 'inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect references.' (Briginshaw V Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 ). So basing a decision purely on the fact that someone has done a course and 'they say so', may not be a sufficient standard of proof under the requirements of the law, depening on how such testimony is viewed by the courts.

Perhaps a challenge to the actual law, rather than its application, is what is needed.

And on top of that you could discredit the course itself seeing as there are extensive studies published on the inaccuracy of visual breed ID.

[megan_]

Huh? What does this mean in practice?

It means that no longer does the Council have to prove that the dog is a Pit Bull. If the Council says it is, then it is - unless you can prove that it isn't. This will see hundreds and hundreds (more) innocent dogs killed, most of them mixed breeds without any 'pit bull' at all.

ETA: Basically, the dog is guilty unless proven innocent.

I thought this was enacted a few years ago in Vic. the onus has been on the owner for a while

[mita]

Huh? What does this mean in practice?

It means that no longer does the Council have to prove that the dog is a Pit Bull. If the Council says it is, then it is - unless you can prove that it isn't. This will see hundreds and hundreds (more) innocent dogs killed, most of them mixed breeds without any 'pit bull' at all.

ETA: Basically, the dog is guilty unless proven innocent.

But this is exactly what led to outright slaughter of innocent family dogs in Qld. Are any lobby groups, like that Barristers' animal welfare group, fighting this amendment?

[RuralPug]

Hmmmm, wouldn't take Perry Mason to set up a situation where half a dozen different rangers gazetted by the Minister as able to make such a declaration, were each separately asked to assess the same half-dozen dogs. Their answers would no doubt vary and therefore prove subjectivity not objectivity.

It seems like saying that a prosecution psychiatrist is always correct and will always overrule a defence psychiatrist...surely the whole thing is disrespectful of our entire legal process?