Boy Savaged By Dogs

[samoyedman]

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/housing-act-washed-its-hands-of--dogs-in--years-before--savage-attack-court-told-20150715-gicse5.html

Housing ACT washed its hands of two dogs in the years before they savagely mauled a six-year-old boy, a court has heard.

A neighbour of the animals told the ACT Supreme Court on Wednesday that he and his wife had made several complaints, over a period of years, to Housing ACT after dogs at the Griffith property kept escaping and menacing the street.

But he said he had instead been referred to Domestic Animal Services.

"We got in the habit of calling nuisance animals because Housing said it wouldn't do anything about it," the man said.

He said a pit bull-type dog continues to reside at the property, despite several previous dogs – including the two involved in the attack – being removed.

The man gave the evidence in the case of attack victim Jack Hartigan, who is suing the ACT Government for its alleged failure to ensure the public housing property was safe for those accessing it.

Jack suffered horrific injuries and psychological trauma as a result of the attack, with skin ripped from his head, his face torn open, teeth knocked out and eaten, and an eye damaged. He had since endured 17 major operations, with more expected.

The tenancy agreement at the Griffith property stated that pets "must not be kept without written permission", but the resident never sought or was granted permission for the American pit bull terriers. It is alleged that the government knew that the two dogs were being kept at the property, and had not acted on numerous complaints about the dogs before the attack in late 2010.

The ACT Government has admitted Jack suffered injuries and disabilities as a result of the attack, but denies liability.

Jack's barrister, John Purnell, SC, told the court on Wednesday that Housing ACT had ultimate responsibility for the state of the Roe Street home.

"Housing can't escape responsibility by subcontracting to other government agencies to maintain safety at the premises," he said.

He argued that ignoring the dogs' presence at the home had breached the agency's duty.

The court will hear from the ACT Government legal team when the case continues before Justice Hilary Penfold on Thursday.

[Stressmagnet]

Why are such dogs so attractive to dickheads? I had an amstaff and she was the loveliest friendliest dog (other than Ernie) that I've ever owned.

People like these assmonkeys ruin it for everyone.

That poor poor boy.

[Two Best Dogs!]

Jesus. That poor person.

[sandgrubber]

Horrible story. Poor kid.

Not clear to me whether Housing or Animal Services is more at fault . . . but it's astoundingly stupid that the dog owner is still allowed to keep dogs.

[melzawelza]

Pretty terrible. I hope the dogs were destroyed.

Sounds like both housing and DAS (if, indeed, it was reported to DAS) have some blame to bear here.

[Little Gifts]

See I'm not so sure about Housings level of fault here because they don't have legislation to enforce anything regarding pets and they certainly have no powers to remove pets from someone's property. All they could do is refer it to DAS for action or evict the tenant for non-compliance. I think they could've put more pressure on DAS to help resolve the situation but apart from that it is the tool who did not appropriately contain his dogs that is at fault. Why do we want to dilute the blame and let this arsehat get away with it?

But what an awful range of injuries that child suffered.

[Steph M]

Pretty terrible. I hope the dogs were destroyed.

Sounds like both housing and DAS (if, indeed, it was reported to DAS) have some blame to bear here.

More dogs will crop up in their place with this type of idiot, sadly.

[melzawelza]

See I'm not so sure about Housings level of fault here because they don't have legislation to enforce anything regarding pets and they certainly have no powers to remove pets from someone's property. All they could do is refer it to DAS for action or evict the tenant for non-compliance. I think they could've put more pressure on DAS to help resolve the situation but apart from that it is the tool who did not appropriately contain his dogs that is at fault. Why do we want to dilute the blame and let this arsehat get away with it?

But what an awful range of injuries that child suffered.

I agree that DAS would have much more powers in regards to actioning the behaviour of the dogs than DAS, but if the owners didn't have permission for the dogs at that property and Housing failed to act to enforce the agreement despite complaints about their behaviour, I could certainly see them bearing some of the blame.

Pretty terrible. I hope the dogs were destroyed.

Sounds like both housing and DAS (if, indeed, it was reported to DAS) have some blame to bear here.

More dogs will crop up in their place with this type of idiot, sadly.

Yup. After an attack so severe the owner needs either some serious intervention and education or a ban on dog ownership.

[Little Gifts]

Government housing clients are often unable to source other types of housing for a variety of reasons. I do agree Housing has a responsibility to visitors to the property but this sounds like a house and not a housing complex and the dogs sound like they were roaming and not on the property. What's a bet the reason they needed approval to have pets is because the fencing is not appropriate for all types of pets?

Having dealt with client issues briefly for that department here in QLD I know that tenants regularly breach all kinds of aspects of their tenancy agreements and getting them out of government housing is extremely difficult because the only other place many of them could go would be their car or the street. I do believe housing staff would've known about dogs and probably didn't do a whole lot about it because there was probably other significant tenancy issues they were managing. They would have to issue warnings and breaches and it could go on for months. The onus would still be considered on the owners of the dogs after being breached to rehome them or find other accommodation if they wanted to keep the dogs but I honestly can't imagine Housing getting approval to terminate a lease for this reason or pursuing legal action to have the dogs forcibly removed so the tenants could remain in compliance. They certainly would've had more push with DAS than neighbours so at the very least this should be an important learning from this horrible incident. Tenant occupancy shouldn't be at the expense of neighbourhood safety.

[j]

In this article, it reads as if the dogs were inside the house and the boy was also inside the house?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/lawsuit-after-boy-mauled-by-dogs-at-act-housing-property-20150703-gi4jca

Jack remembers the snarling dogs being locked up when they arrived at the home, only to escape when a door was inadvertently opened.

Moments earlier, his friend had bid him to hide in a bedroom with him.

But Jack thought he'd be safer with the adults.

"It was the worst mistake of my life," Jack said.

Read more: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/lawsuit-after-boy-mauled-by-dogs-at-act-housing-property-20150703-gi4jca.html#ixzz3hYzxICmI