Appeal against determination — disqualification from being dog owner — commission of infringement offences — dog kept under control — Dog Control Act 1996, ss 21, 25(1), 26 & 27. The appellant appealed against a decision of the respondent council disqualifying him from being the owner of a dog for a three-year period. The appellant had initially been disqualified for a five-year period but following a review it had been reduced. The disqualification came about as a result of three infringement offences where his dogs had been roaming the streets. The appellant submitted that the infringement offences were because of his second dog being the "pack leader" and leading his first dog astray. The second dog had since been destroyed and the appellant's first dog had proven itself to be a dog kept under control in the 10 months since the last event. The appellant also submitted he would be willing to be classified as a probationary owner, meaning he would have to undergo training courses. The Judge agreed with the submission of the respondent that it was the owner's behaviour, rather than the dog's, which was the important factor. Since the infringement offences, the appellant had fenced his property and the risk associated with the dog roaming had been mitigated. The Judge considered it was just in the circumstances to allow the appeal and terminate the disqualification. Being classified as a probationary dog owner was not an option under s 27 of the Dog Control Act, but the Judge noted that the parties may wish to go down this track (and it was still possible under s 21 of the Act), as the appellant had indicated his willingness to participate in courses to become a more responsible dog owner. Judgment Date: 27 January 2021.