This is our second blog post addressing the proposed changes to Queensland’s dangerous dog laws. Our first post can be found here.
In this post, we look at the issue of “destruction” of a dog, and how the Strong dog laws: Safer Communities paper proposes to change the existing laws.
The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 currently gives power to “authorised persons” to destroy a dog. A regulated dog can be immediately destroyed without notice given to the dog’s owner in some circumstances and in others it may be destroyed within three days.
Further, an authorised person can give notice of destruction to an owner, and if the owner does not apply for an internal review of the decision, the dog may be destroyed 14 days after the order is served. It’s important to note also that a dog may be declared a regulated dog at the same time as a destruction order is made.
Unfortunately, the Act is vague on when an authorised person can give notice and carry out a destruction order, and therefore the killing of a dog may arise because of potentially unfair and unjust subjective decisions of the “authorised person”. In the absence of clear statutory guidance, the Appeals Tribunal and Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the bodies that would conduct the external review of the destruction decision) have had to have regard to the objects of the Act and the legislative scheme as a whole, to determine the legislative intent. Tests have been developed to be applied when applications are made for external review of a destruction order.
One test is a consideration of whether there is any other way the community can be protected other than destruction, where it is accepted that destruction is a last resort. The safety of the community rather than any rights of the dog owner are deemed paramount.
The discussion paper proposes that the Act be amended to enshrine this “community safety” test so that it’s clear when a destruction order can be made. As this is not a perfect test and still affords the authorised person the ability to make personal assessments, the paper also proposes that consideration is given to the relevant history and behaviour of the dog, the circumstances that led to the destruction order, whether training of the dog would be helpful, and whether arrangements for the keeping of the dog can be improved. These considerations were adopted in the matter of Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121.
CastleGate Animal Law Clinic is of the view that these proposed changes would provide much needed clarity about when a destruction order can be made and carried out, and thus potentially avoid or penalise subjective and ad hoc destruction decisions made by authorised persons.
The community is invited to have their say on the proposals being made, some of which we have addressed in our blog posts. For more information, please contact us on [email protected], or visit Department of Agriculture and Fisheries | Strong dog laws: Safer communities (engagementhub.com.au) . CastleGate Animal Law Clinic intends to make appropriate submissions in line with our goals for improved animal protections under the law.