High Court Considers The Fate Of Izzy The Staffordshire Terrier
Monday 20 April 2015 @ 11.07 a.m. | Legal Research
The High Court is currently deciding the fate of a Staffordshire terrier named Izzy, after her owner appealed a decision by Victoria’s Knox City Council to have the dog destroyed. The case was dismissed in both the Supreme Court of Victoria and the Victorian Court of Appeal. Ms Isbester and her lawyers are arguing that the courts erred in law by accepting that the rules of procedural fairness applied to the Council’s decision but concluding that there was no conflict of interest caused by a council investigator sitting on the panel after giving evidence against the dog.
Facts
Ms Isbester plead guilty to a series of charges under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) (“the Act”), after her three dogs were involved in a series of attacks on other dogs and people in 2012 and 2013. In particular, Izzy was alleged to have left a 1.5 cm laceration on the finger of a woman who was trying to prevent her daughter’s dog from being attacked. Following these charges, the Council wrote to Ms Isbester informing her that they were considering exercising a power under section 84P of the Act to have the dog destroyed, and that they would convene a panel hearing at which she could make submissions. The hearing took place, and the panel determined that the dog should be put down.
Ms Isbester began proceedings in the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision of the panel was subject to apprehended bias, as one of the members of the panel had been involved in the Council’s initial investigation of the matter and the formulation of the prosecution case in the Magistrates’ Court. The case was dismissed, as was a subsequent appeal to the Victorian Court of Appeal.
High Court Challenge
The High Court granted Ms Isbester leave to appeal the decision, and held a hearing on the case last week. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that lawyers for Ms Isbster and Izzy told the Court that:
“the court case and panel decision were “inextricably linked”, and the Appeal Court had erred in finding that because the criminal proceedings had ended, that the council employee had not been an accuser before [the] council panel.”
Counsel for Knox City Council, however, argued that the council officer was simply performing her job.
Ms Isbester’s case is being supported by the Barristers Animal Welfare Panel. The Age reported that following the Victorian Court of Appeal decision, they released a statement on their website saying that the Act’s definition of “serious injury” is subject to an unnecessarily low threshold:
“Even though a dog, for example, may only have nipped or cut the skin (without any puncture wound whatsoever), it is deemed a 'serious injury'.”
Ms Isbester told the Sydney Morning Herald that Izzy had been examined by a pet behaviourist and found to have “strong affection for humans”, and said destroying an animal should not be the first answer.
The High Court has reserved its judgment.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.
