The life of Tauranga Rottweiler Chopper is once again under threat as Tauranga City Council is appealing the judge's ruling on its previous charge.
Chopper was released from the pound in July after the charge against his owner Helen Fraser was dismissed by Judge David Cameron.
Fraser was charged by the council with owning a dog causing injury, after Chopper bit veterinarian Dr Liza Schneider during an appointment to discuss the dog's de-sexing in October 2021.
The attack left Schneider, the owner of Holistic Vets, with a fractured ulna, four puncture wounds, nerve and muscle damage and required surgery.
If Fraser was convicted of the charge it would mean the dog was legally required to be put down.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of three years imprisonment or a $20,000 fine.
During the judge alone trial in June, the dispute was whether Fraser was liable for the attack.
In his decision, Judge Cameron said Dr Schneider 'was responsible for determining how the situation should be handled”.
'She was in a position to take appropriate steps to maintain and exercise control,” said Judge Cameron.
'She failed though to take any steps to maintain and exercise control, despite having every opportunity to do so.
'Had she done so, the incident would have been avoided.
'I consider that Dr Schneider put herself in a position where she was vulnerable to attack by a dog who had not been assessed for safety purposes.”
Tauranga City Council environmental regulation manager Nigel McGlone says the council filed the appeal because it believed the judge 'made an error of law”.
'He focussed on the conduct of the victim, rather than the legal responsibility of the dog owner to control the dog,” says McGlone.
'Council sought advice from Crown Law who agree that it is in the interest of the public to clarify this issue of law, as the outcome will have implications for all dog owners.”
Ryan Tarawhiti-Brown when he was reunited with Chopper in July. Photo: Supplied.
Fraser's son Ryan Tarawhiti-Brown says the family wasn't surprised by the council's appeal because they knew it was always an option.
He describes the council's appeal as 'wanting to win at all costs” and says there were 'better uses” for ratepayers' money than a high court appeal.
'We told the truth in court and the judge saw that,” says Tarawhiti-Brown.
He says his mum is 'stressed” because of the appeal and the costs that may be involved, as well as the threat to Chopper's life.
'It's been stressful right from the start, but this is a whole new thing,” he said.
'We just want to move on with our lives. We want to know this is all behind us.
'Then we don't have to worry about Chopper being taken away from us and mum doesn't have to have these fines and a jail sentence hanging above her.”
Chopper was in the pound for nine months and unable to leave his kennel. Fraser visited him almost daily during that time, says Tarawhiti-Brown.
Since being home Chopper has been 'perfect” and they have been working with a dog trainer and doing hydrotherapy to help strengthen his back legs.
'It feels like he didn't even leave. He's just fitted in that well.”
Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air.
15 comments
Let sleeping dogs lie
Posted on 16-08-2022 13:14 | By dire
What's up with the council? Let chopper be. He has done his time and a ruling was made. Let it be, let him be free.
What a disgrace!
Posted on 16-08-2022 13:19 | By The Professor
What a disgrace and waste of ratepayers money. The Council are questioning whether the dog was under control. Chopper was on a lead I thought....so was under control. This is such a stressful situation for Chopper's family. I just hope the appeal is unsuccessful for the Council and that Chopper and Chopper's family can move on.
Unbelievable....
Posted on 16-08-2022 13:44 | By Tga Lad
Come on TCC leave this poor family alone so they can get on with life. The judge has already made a decision based on both sides of the story. Haven't they got more important things to worry about....ie roading & infrastructure. No point spending $300M on a civic centre when people aren't interested in battling our roads to get there.
Reading the Judges summation
Posted on 16-08-2022 14:05 | By Kancho
Council are wasting time of the courts and wasting ratepayers money. The Judge made a reasoned summation of responsibilities on actions not taken by the vet and not in accordance with previous protocols and also answers given by the vet as to why she didn't request the dog be put back into the car, nor apply a muzzle before she approached and got between owners talking loudly and a probably stressed dog. . In the end this contained no willful act so in effect an regrettable accident. Stop wasting money and time it does nothing . This isn't an irresponsible owner
Excellent!
Posted on 16-08-2022 14:14 | By jed
The judge's decision was legally wrong. Good on the council for doing the right thing.
@Jed
Posted on 16-08-2022 14:40 | By The Professor
You're clearly a legal expert Jed.....please explain why the judgement was legally wrong?
Dangerous Dog!
Posted on 16-08-2022 14:56 | By Equality
The owner was aware of the dogs behaviour to strangers and should have had the animal muzzled!
Question
Posted on 16-08-2022 14:56 | By The Sage
What has this got to do with the Council? If they want things to change they should first look to their own by laws.
@Equality
Posted on 16-08-2022 15:13 | By The Professor
The Vet was also aware of the dog's behaviour and should have taken the necessary precautions.....requesting muzzle etc.. Pretty much as the Judge said. Vets should know better - they come across frightened/nervous animals all the time and know that an animal's only defense is to bite. I notice it's the Council that are taking action and not the Vet.......how has accepted the judgement and is moving on with life.
Jed
Posted on 16-08-2022 16:07 | By Honesty is the best Policy
If you no everything why did the judge throw it out of court. The vet was in the wrong so get your facts right courts made there Decision end of. Councail just wasting money again
Muzzle Equality
Posted on 16-08-2022 16:08 | By Kancho
If you read the case the vet chose not to muzzle the dog nor have it back in the car Etc. No evidence as to it being a known dangerous dog to people. Also Jed it is not proven to be a wrong interpretation of law at this point. So also very wrong to say illegal
Dangerous dog!
Posted on 16-08-2022 16:51 | By fair game
If the dog wasn't assessed to be safe, why was it not muzzled and under control by a responsible adult? Have to sympathize with the vet who has ongoing problems with the injuries their dog inflicted. That's not OK. Support TCC for the first time ever.
Observation
Posted on 17-08-2022 11:12 | By jed
Not one of the commenters who support the aptly named 'Chopper' have given any thoughts to the victim. But, that is not surprising. Makes one wonder how the dog was raised given its inability to behave around strangers. With a name like 'Chopper', we can guess.
I'm an animal lover.
Posted on 17-08-2022 23:31 | By morepork
But the issue here is whether a dog owner is responsible for controlling their dog. That's what the Council are seeking to clarify for future reference. And that future reference could affect any one of us. It could be your loved ones or your self who is savaged by a dog that is out of control. I believe owners MUST be responsible. (And I have applied that for all the dogs I have owned.) I'll be interested to see what the supreme Court judgement is.
So sad,
Posted on 18-08-2022 10:19 | By R. Bell
that so many are happy to see a dog put down. The issue is whether a highly paid professional assumes control in this situation. The answer is a resounding yes. This vet was at fault for not taking obvious precautions. If she were a lay person the owner would be at fault. Sad result all round.
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to make a comment.