Why council didn't prosecute attack dog's owner

Waitakere's dog control chief is defending a decision not to prosecute the owner of a pitbull terrier cross which attacked a 10-year-old girl last Thursday.

Sree V Nair received seven stitches to her hand after the attack by the unleashed dog in Te Atatu Peninsula. Its owner took it into hiding but later surrendered it for destruction when council officials and police called with a search warrant.

Council animal welfare manager Neil Wells said the owner would not be prosecuted in return for handing the dog over,

In response to Herald readers' queries, Mr Wells said yesterday there was misunderstanding in the public mind about powers given by the Dog Control Act.

"It's not an open-ended policy that there will be no prosecution if the dog is handed over. It's done on a case-by-case basis."

In this case, when the dog was traced to its home, officers could have forced their way into the house and removed the dog. However, they were powerless to have dogs destroyed without a court order.

The dog would have been held in custody until the court order came through, which could take from three months to 18 months depending on whether the owner appealed.

"We had to take into account what was the public good of prosecuting.

"We already had the dog destroyed and all that prosecuting would bring was a conviction and a fine which, because of the owner's circumstances, would not be a high penalty.

"While we were taking the prosecution there would be nothing to stop that person going out and getting another dog so the problem repeats itself.

"We'd rather work one to one with the person on education to ensure they understood their responsibilities."

Other factors taken into account included the approval of the victim, willingness to give evidence in court, seriousness of the injury and whether the owner showed remorse.

Maximum penalties in the act are three months in prison and a $20,000 fine.