(stock photo- not a photo of dog involved in incident)
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
By Alric Lindsay
Today, June 22, 2026, the Chief Magistrate heard the case of a couple who faced a charge of failing to keep a dog under proper control. They were fined $500 each, and no destruction of the animal was ordered.
According to Crown Counsel Kenneth Ferguson from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the victim was riding his bicycle along Peanut Lane at night on his way home. Upon arrival, he saw a Rottweiler dog outside wearing a harness without a leash.
Reportedly, the dog rushed at the victim and started barking. Although the victim attempted to chase the dog away, the dog attacked him, and grabbed onto his left thigh, near the groin area. The victim cried out, and the dog eventually ran off.
When the victim examined himself, he saw a puncture wound on his thigh with three other deep marks. He took photographs of the injury and made a report to the police.
Upon the police’s arrival, they spoke with the victim and observed two small bite marks close to each other on the victim’s left inner thigh. An ambulance was summoned to the scene and the victim was transported to the hospital.
The police then attended the residence of Mr and Mrs Green to discuss the incident.
Reportedly, Mr Green, informed the police that he owned a black Rottweiler, but he was unaware that the dog had bitten anyone. Mrs Green then came out and told the police that she did not see the victim with any injuries and that the police should do whatever they had to do, as she did not care.
Mr Green explained to the police that the dog is usually kept on a leash, but the pin attached to the leash had broken. This led to the dog breaking loose. Police advised the couple to secure the dog properly to avoid any recurrence.
According to the medical reports, the victim had three point-three-centimetre wounds to the his left thigh. The injuries were consistent with being inflicted by puncture wounds and were determined not to be serious.
Arguing on behalf of the dog owners, defence attorney Katina Anglin explained that the owners always kept the dog on a leash or in a kennel, and that the broken pin on the cable led to the dog’s escape on the day in question. Reportedly, Mr Green was unaware that the chain had become corroded and therefore weakened the pin because there is a plastic coating that runs over the cable, obscuring the dog owner’s view of corrosion of the chain.
Following the incident, Mr Green, who was not present at the time of the incident, restrained the dog, and immediately repaired the broken pen and secured the dog. He was unaware that the victim had, had any injury, and he submits that had the victim brought it to his attention. In cooperation with his wife, he compensated the victim for his medical expenses.
Reportedly, the dog is now housed inside, has displayed no signs of aggression on inspection by the senior animal welfare officer.
After hearing submissions from counsels, the Chief Magistrate said:
I accept that the harm is low, the culpability is low. You’ve had this dog as a household dog for over sixteen years with nothing happening prior, and so therefore, that places culpability… on the low side.
I consider this to be a one-off incident, which was an unfortunate incident.
The Chief Magistrate added:
The doctor’s report said there were puncture wounds and no visible bruising.
… you’re both upstanding members of the community reaching the age that you’ve reached with a clean record… [and] … in the circumstances, I believe a conviction would be disproportionate to the offence.
I am therefore giving you a conditional discharge for one year. You will pay costs to the Crown, however, of five hundred dollars each. If at the end of the twelve months there is no other offending to come before the courts, then no conviction will be recorded on either of your records. I am also not making any ancillary orders in relation to destruction of the dog because the senior animal welfare officer’s statement is very clear that they have no concerns and that you have acted promptly to ensure that that minor matter was dealt with, and they have absolutely no concerns. So in the circumstances, no order for destruction of the dog.
