Chopper the rottweiler is once again facing the threat of being put down, as the council begins a process to appeal a decision dismissing a charge against its owner. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
Warning: This story contains a graphic image.
A rottweiler that mauled the arm of a vet surgeon is once again at threat of being put down after Tauranga City Council appealed its failed charges against the dog's owner.
Tauranga woman Helen Fraser was cleared in July of a single charge of owning a dog causing injury - a charge that if convicted, would mean the dog was legally required to be put down.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.
The prosecution came after Fraser's rottweiler Chopper attacked vet surgeon Liza Schneider in a pre-consultation before a de-sexing surgery at Tauranga Holistic Vets in October last year.
Schneider was planning to assess the animal in the clinic's car park when the dog lunged at her. She was left with a broken ulna, deep puncture wounds, and muscle and nerve damage.
A plate and six screws were later surgically placed in her arm.
The dog was seized by the council the same day and remained in the Tauranga Dog Pound for nine months, awaiting Fraser's trial.
Her day in court came in June, where a day-long trial saw both Schneider and Fraser give evidence.
In court, both parties accepted the attack happened. The dispute surrounded whether liability for the attack lay with Fraser.
In a reserved decision three weeks later, District Court judge David Cameron found Fraser not guilty of the charge and concluded the vet failed to take adequate steps to prevent the attack.
He said in his decision: "[Schneider] was in a position to take appropriate steps to maintain and exercise control. She failed though to take any steps to maintain and exercise control, despite having every opportunity to do so. Had she done so, the incident would have been avoided."
Chopper was freed the same day.
In a statement, Tauranga City Council environmental regulation manager Nigel McGlone said the council sought advice from Crown Law as to whether or not it would be appropriate to appeal the judgement.
"[The] council believes the judge made an error of law because he focused on the conduct of the victim, rather than the legal responsibility of the dog owner to control the dog.
"Crown Law agrees that it is in the interest of the public to clarify this issue of law, as the outcome will have implications for all dog owners."
Speaking on behalf of the family, Fraser's son Ryan Tarawhiti-Brown criticised the council's decision to appeal, describing it as a "win-at-all-cost play by the council".
"The judge ruled that the vet did not follow her own clinic's safety plan. We followed all the rules that the clinic gave to us. We have told the truth from our first statement.
"Let's move on and put ratepayers' money to better use in the community."
Want to have your say on our stories? Here's how.