Attacking dog’s owner appeals for staffie’s life, demands $25k

A High Court appeal decision was released this week regarding the fate of an attacking dog and its owner's demands for $25,000 in reparation.

A dog owner who was ordered to pay $1000 reparation after his dog attacked someone has had his fight to be paid $25,000 and keep his dog alive thrown out.

Marsh Taikato’s dog Bugaboo attacked a woman on Christmas Day, 2021, leaving her in “excruciating pain”, and Taikato was sentenced on September 6 last year after pleading guilty to an offence under the Dog Control Act.

In November, he appealed the sentence of $1000 reparation to the victim, $157 for medical costs and an order to put down his Staffordshire bull terrier dog Bugaboo.

He argued the court did not have jurisdiction over him because he did “not consent”. He said he was protected under the Declaration of Independence 1835 (He Whakaputanga) and his ex-wife called for the dog to be returned based on “truth and common law”.

He sought his own reparation of $25,000.

But in a High Court appeal decision released this week, Justice Mark Woolford said Taikato’s argument was “untenable”.

The appeal decision said Taikato owned Bugaboo, but the dog was at Taikato’s ex-wife’s address on December 25, 2021. At the time, his ex-wife was disqualified from dog ownership due to failures to register and control Bugaboo.

Bugaboo attacked a woman who had come to pick up a bike from the address at 1am.

Bugaboo bit the woman on her right ankle, penetrating and tearing the skin.

“This left her in excruciating pain which required hospital treatment and subsequent surgery,” the appeal finding said.

Taikato was not at the address at the time, but Bugaboo was taken back inside by associates.

The dog went back outside and tried to attack the victim again, rushing at her throat. The dog bit the victim’s arm, which she had raised to defend herself.

A dog control officer later took Bugaboo using a warrant.

In his appeal, Taikato said he did not accept the charges against him.

“Since the Government is a creation of the people, it cannot possibly have jurisdiction over its creators unless by consent. Each and every statute enacted by Government legislation requires consent from each and every man and woman, including me,” he said.

“I, Marsh Maihi Taikato, do not accept the alleged charge against me and I do not consent to this or any further proceeding.”

He said he was protected under the Declaration of Independence 1835 (He Whakaputanga) and the common law jurisdiction.

He said he and his ex-wife asked for Bugaboo to be restored to them and were “fearful for his life”.

Taikato said it was “not right” for Bugaboo to die because of the “inconsiderate, inappropriate disrespect of some human who should know better”.

The $25,000 reparation was sought to “deter dog officers from acting similarly in the future”.

Justice Woolford said Taikato’s submission the court had no jurisdiction to make any orders against him was “untenable”.

“The laws of New Zealand apply to everyone in New Zealand. Mr Taikato’s invocation of his rights as a one of a ‘Sovereign People’ does not change this.”

Justice Woolford also upheld the order for Bugaboo’s destruction and the reparation order.

“The risk that Bugaboo will attack another person in a similar fashion because he cannot be controlled is too high.”