The Queensland Government is seeking submissions and feedback from the public via a discussion paper about proposed changes to the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008.
The proposals aim to bring Queensland dangerous dog laws in line with those laws in other states; at the present time, for example, Queensland is the only Australian state where dog owners are not confronted with a prison sentence in instances where their dog may attack any person or animal.
The discussion paper, called Strong dog laws: Safer Communities, proposes a maximum penalty of imprisonment for a dog owner whose dog has attacked, and that where attack is a serious attack causing harm to a person. The actual harm caused and the circumstances of the attack are considerations in determining the criminal liability.
The discussion paper acknowledges that in some instances criminal liability may be difficult to prosecute. In the case of alleged criminal negligence of the dog owner for example, there is a higher standard of proof, and it is necessary that the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt that a dog owner breached a duty of care which directly caused harm to a person.
However, the paper seeks to address this obstacle by proposing a new criminal offence, being a dog owner’s failure to take reasonable steps to control their dog, and their dog has caused bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death to a person. Crucial in determining the penalty in these instances (that is, whether the penalty should be imprisonment or a lesser penalty) will be considerations such as whether the dog is a “regulated dog”, or whether the dog owner has been previously convicted of an offence relating to a “regulated dog”.
What is a “regulated dog”? Sections 60, 61, 62 and 63 of the Act provide the definition. Simply, a “regulated dog” is a “declared dangerous dog”, a “declared menacing dog” or a “restricted dog”. Those terms are further defined.
A declared dangerous dog is a dog the local government has declared dangerous because it has “seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal”, or because it “may….seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to, the person or animal” (emphasis added). A “menacing dog” is a dog the local government has declared “menacing” on the existence of the same grounds as for a “dangerous dog” but the circumstances of any actual attack was not serious.
The definition of “restricted dog” currently relies on Schedule 1 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956, with a restricted dog being: (a) dogo Argentino;(b) fila Brasileiro;(c) Japanese tosa;(d) American pit bull terrier or pit bull terrier; (e) Perro de Presa Canario or Presa Canario.
Presently, someone may own a “restricted dog” under a specific permit. The discussion paper proposes that these dogs be banned in Queensland altogether, with a person unable to apply for a permit. The proposal requires amendments to the existing law, allowing current owners of restricted dogs to keep their dog. Presumably those restricted dogs would remain “regulated dogs” and therefore subject to the new proposed laws pertaining to criminal liability.
In the interests of conciseness and being able to devote attention to just one salient issue of the discussion paper, this post only addresses the proposed introduction of a term of imprisonment penalty for some dog owners. It’s anticipated that future blog posts will highlight other aspects of the paper so that the community can provide informed feedback of the proposed changes.