He told the Bay of Plenty Times that the court convicted the owner of being the owner of a dog that attacked a person, and then issued an order for the dog to be destroyed.
Mr Lincoln said the case began in the Community Magistrates Court, followed by the defendant appealing to the District Court and then the High Court.
The High Court ruled that the District Court needed to rehear the matter and the second District Court decision was then appealed by the defendant back to the High Court.
The High Court decision was appealed to the Court of Appeal.
The two-year impounding was disclosed to a recent meeting of the council's community and culture committee.
Mr Lincoln was taking councillors through the annual dog control report in which 84 people complained about being attacked by dogs and 87 said they were rushed at by dogs, but not attacked.
Mr Lincoln later told the Bay of Plenty Times that the owner was appealing both the conviction and the order.
There was a technical argument around the conviction, but the focus was on the destruction order.
He said submissions by the council and the dog owner had to be before the Court of Appeal by mid-October, so the court could decide whether to allow the appeal.
His experience of most dog bites was that people got over the physical injury relatively quickly.
"It was the psychological injury that affected people the most."
In the case of the community nurse, he said the bite was bad enough for her to require hospital treatment. "It took a while for her to get back on her feet."
He said the prosecution was expected to reach a conclusion by late October.
The dog has been in the pound since the attack because it could not be released or disposed of until the conclusion of legal proceedings.
Mr Lincoln said legal costs and the costs of keeping the dog in the pound for over two years would depend on what the court ordered.
He was unable to say how much the council had accumulated in veterinary costs for the dog or legal costs.
However, the daily sustenance fee for impounded dogs was $7, meaning the bill for the shar-pei cross had reached about $5380.
Mr Lincoln told councillors that the shar-pei cross was exercised but in a very controlled manner. They also allowed the owner to exercise the dog.
He told the Bay of Plenty Times
the dog owner was arguing that the test of ''mens rea'' should apply to a prosecution of this nature. It meant that the council must prove the dog owner knew the dog was likely to act aggressively.
''In effect, this means that a dog must have shown previous aggression.''
That is, it must have already bitten someone, for the council to prosecute.
The council argued the test of ''strict liability'' applied. This meant the dog owner must prove that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the attack from happening. The dog did not have to have shown any previous aggression.
''The High Court supports this approach.''
Tauranga's dog statistics at June 30, 2017
Number of registered dogs: 12,134
Number of disqualified owners: 12
Dogs classified as dangerous: 26
Dogs classified as menacing: 47
Infringement notices for year: 561
Roaming and impounded dogs for year: 1725
Unregistered dogs for year: 264
