The Accused was charged with a single breach of the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) namely:
- breach of section 29(3) – person in apparent control of a dog attacking a cat causing death. (Maximum Penalty: 40 Penalty Units – $7,396.80)
The Accused is the owner of a Dogue de Bordeaux (French Mastiff) type dog.
In August 2022 the Accused was walking their dog on leash when a short haired grey and white cat appeared on the footpath. The two animals commenced fighting on the nature strip. The owner of the cat heard the commotion and exited her house to the front nature strip.
The Accused tried to pull their dog away from the cat and tripped over injuring her knee and shoulder. The Accused never let go of the dog lead when on the ground but admitted she did not the attacking dog under effective control.
The dog while under limited restraint, lunged at the cat gripping it by the neck area. The dog still clutching the cat has then moved with it off the nature strip into the road area shaking it in its mouth.
The Accused got up from her fall and regained control moving the dog away from the injured cat.
The cat was rushed by its owners to a nearby vet clinic where however the cat was deceased before it arrived.
Magistrates’ Court Decision
In August 2023, the Accused appeared in the Moorabbin Magistrates’ Court and entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
The matter was heard before His Honour Magistrate McGrane who found the charge proven. The Accused had no prior matters.
Russell Kennedy Lawyers submitted to the Court the following amongst other things in relation to the charge:
- the offending was serious resulting in the death of a cat; and
- that the Court needed to send a message of general deterrence to all dog owners.
The Accused submitted through their Counsel that:
- the cat had to share some blame for not running away;
- the Accused was a 57 year old registered nurse with limited means; and
- the attacking dog was 8 years old and has never been involved in any such incident previously.
His Honour Magistrate McGrane did not accept that the cat was to blame and focussed on the fact that the Accused had an ordinary leash on a strong dog instead of a choker lead which is now used.
His Honour said that the unacceptable/unsuitable lead on the dog caused the Accused to lose control and it was tool ate after the incident to change to a choke lead which should have been used in the first place.
Mr McGrane said it is of grave concern that big dogs are allowed in a street that are not controlled by voice and/or leash. He said it was lucky an animal was attacked and not a child and that dog owners need to be astute and have proper control.
The Accused was without conviction fined and ordered to pay costs with the total amount of fine and costs totalling $2,716.18.