Paul Smith at home with his dogs Gus (left) and McKenzie. Photo / Dean Purcell
Paul Smith at home with his dogs Gus (left) and McKenzie. Photo / Dean Purcell
When Paul Smith was slapped with a $600 fine for not having his two dogs on a leash it would have been quicker, and cheaper, to just pay up.
But, determined to stand his ground, the Rothesay Bay, Auckland, man went to court to challenge the fine that stemmed from a complaint made by a neighbour whose son had previously been injured when their dogs clashed.
That attack happened one evening in January 2021 when Smith was coming off the beach with his dog Gus. The brown male Airedale cross rushed at Abby, a black female Staffordshire bull terrier being walked by the teenage son of Smith’s neighbour.
Gus bit Abby on her ear and cheek. She retaliated and while the dogs’ jaws were locked on each other, the teen’s finger was caught in the fray and broken.
Unfortunately, this wasn’t the first, or even the second time, the dogs had come to blows. There was already bad blood between the two canines who lived two doors down from each other.
Months earlier, Smith claims, Abby ran across the road and attacked Gus on their property, which he says was witnessed by a neighbour who had to hose the staffy down to get her to release her grip on Gus. Then, just weeks after that, Smith says, Abby again rushed at Gus on the beach but he didn’t report either incident to authorities.
Fast forward to the third encounter when Smith’s neighbour’s son was left with a finger that was so damaged it had to be stitched up by a plastic surgeon in hospital.
The Smiths meet Abby’s owners, the Hoffmans, five days after the attack. Smith said he was very sorry their young man was hurt, and offered to pay Abby’s vet bill.
According to court documents Tila Hoffman said her son thought Gus was “going to rip one of Abby’s ears off”.
“Your dog was not on a lead and you did not help,” she said in an email to Smith two months later.
“We were at Middlemore for eight hours. His GP said he was lucky he didn’t lose the end of his finger,” she said.
The 18-year-old effectively lost the rest of his summer because he had to keep his finger elevated - unable to work, drive, or swim, lift weights and work out, all the things he loved, she wrote.
Later, Hoffman asked for another $1400 to cover her son’s medical bills and lost wages. In her view, they had agreed on a plan - Smith would pay full reparations, keep Gus off the balcony, on a leash, and work with a dog behaviourist together with Abby.
“If you are unwilling to transfer funds and commit to this before COB on Wednesday, we will move forward with a complaint to the Auckland Council and initiate proceedings,” she said in the same email in March.
Smith paid the vet bill two days after receiving the email, but agreed the case should go to the council. The Hoffmans complained the following week.
On April 16, Smith was fined $200 for failing to keep Gus on a leash and was served a menacing dog classification, which meant Gus must be muzzled in public.
Smith paid the fine but appealed the classification. In his appeal, he attached four letters - from a doggy daycare, a boarding kennel, an intensive four-week Good Dog Training programme and a neighbour - attesting to fluffy brown Gus’ character, calling him “a balanced and safe dog”.
The council lifted the classification the following day.
But, that was far from the end of things between the neighbours and their dogs.
‘One of us is a liar’
From there Smith says the neighbours lived an uncomfortable truce until one lockdown morning in September 2021.
Smith was walking Gus and his other dog, Mckenzie, home after a play on the beach - a move that would eventually result in another complaint to the council and the fine he would go on to challenge in court.
Paul Smith with Mckenzie and Gus, who goes to doggy daycare and had his menacing dog classification lifted in April. Photo / Dean Purcell
In a complaint to the council, Hoffman said she was coming home from a run when she saw the dogs “roaming all over people’s front yards”. She attached a photo as evidence.
After that, the council issued Smith a $600 fine for not having Gus and Mckenzie on-leash in a public area.
But, Smith refused to pay this time. He took the case to court and on November 1, 2022, more than a year after that morning encounter, came face-to-face with Hoffman at the North Shore District Court before two Justices of the Peace.
Appearing as a prosecution witness for the council, Hoffman told the court she was about 50m behind Smith when she whipped out her phone, took a photo, then texted her husband to say she finally got a photo of Gus off-leash.
The photo shows a residential street with neatly mown grass, a traffic cone, several parked cars and, in the distant background, a tiny figure of a person in dark clothing. No dogs.
“This photograph is taken from a distance so please look closely, get IT’s help,” she said when sending the picture to the council, adding Gus was hidden by shrubbery and Mckenzie by Smith.
Smith, defending himself in court after deciding not to pay a lawyer the $6000 he was quoted, said the council had no evidence to back up their allegation that he failed to control his dogs. Both dogs were leashed that morning on their walk home, he said. He raised the two leashes - red for Gus, pink for Mckenzie - that he brought to court.
“This is not about a fine,” he said when asked if he wished to make a closing statement in court. “The photo was taken from so far, the dogs were not there.
“All my neighbours support me, including Hoffman’s,” he said, his voice breaking, “and one of us is a liar.”
The Justices said the court had one credible witness saying she saw the dogs not on leashes, and one equally credible witness saying the dogs were on leashes. They added the photo “did not enter our decision-making whatsoever”.
“We have no choice but to dismiss the charges, because they are not proven beyond reasonable doubt,” they said.
‘Morally exciting’
Outside the courtroom, Smith and his wife hugged, wiping away tears.
“This is clearly a case that shouldn’t have gone to court,” he said. “What I understand from here is, someone’s word can get you in a lot of trouble, and [the council] can use their word to prosecute someone.”
Smith paid $1300 for legal advice to defend his case, more than double the fine he was issued. But, it was worth a win he called “morally exciting”.
“We thought it was unfair that council backed the complainant and not us.
“It would have been way easier to write up a cheque for $600,” his wife said, preferring not to be named, “but it’s the principle really ... otherwise everyone will just go accusing everybody else.”
The council said its in-house lawyers worked 45 hours on the case, one of four between January and November 2022 involving people who have disputed dog fines in court - a tiny fraction of the several thousand dog infringement notices issued every year.
“We are talking 14 months of anguish and being called a liar,” Smith said of the ordeal.
They were neighbours who had never met until their dogs crossed paths, and had only seen one another a handful of times in the three years they lived on the same street.
