Porotu was then seized and taken to a veterinarian for treatment, and was found to have a “severe, chronic bacterial skin disease” and infected and inflamed ears, eyes and toes.
According to the pleadings provided to NZME, it was the vet’s opinion that the dog had been in this condition for weeks, if not months, and that Porotu would have been in significant pain and distress.
The SPCA said the respondents had been unwilling or unable to afford the veterinarian care that Porotu needed, and that they disagreed with the proposed treatment as outlined.
They believed they had been caring for Porotu to an acceptable standard.
Judge Tony Zohrab said in granting the order today after the matter was adjourned in January for proof that the right documentation had been served on the couple, that there was now clear evidence they had been given ample opportunity to take appropriate steps if they were truly interested in Porotu’s health and wellbeing.
Because the SPCA had not prosecuted the pair it was obliged to return the dog to their care but had sought the enforcement order so it could put safeguards in place.
The owners could reclaim the dog with proof of a care plan that included that they buy specialised dog food, medication, ear lotion and shampoo to bathe Porotu weekly, to be facilitated by a veterinarian as outlined or as otherwise instructed.
The dog would also need to be checked by a vet once every eight weeks or as required for six months.
They were also given the option of having Porotu euthanised or surrendering ownership of him to the SPCA, which would retain custody of him until an appointment was made to euthanise him.
The law set out that an owner or person in charge of an animal meet minimal standards regarding its care and welfare.
The minimum standards within the animal welfare code that applied to dogs required owners or people in charge of their care to seek immediate attention for an animal when there were signs of serious pain and suffering.
If it was extreme or untreatable then a dog had to be euthanised.
Judge Zohrab said the Animal Welfare Act empowered the court to make an enforcement order. He noted repeated attempts by the SPCA to engage with the dog’s owners, including over matters before the court.
A representative for the SPCA told the court recent contact with the pair had been made by an inspectorate team leader, and that Wilson denied she had received any affidavit of service or notice of today’s hearing.
Wilson said she had turned up to court at an earlier date but found nothing happening, and that she had other things she needed to deal with today and would not be in court.
The couple failed to appear at last month’s scheduled hearing, which was adjourned until today for confirmation of proof they had been served the appropriate documents.
Judge Zohrab was satisfied that the papers had been served last November. He noted nothing had been filed by either in response to the application for an enforcement order.
“This is a case where there is clear evidence the pair has been served with the documents,” he said.
Judge Zohrab said it was hard to argue that the SPCA had acted unreasonably, given the steps taken to try and help the situation since the complaint was made in March 2022.
“They have tried to adopt a very reasonable approach and one that was focused on assisting the owners to address the health and wellbeing of the dog,” Judge Zohrab said.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
