Judge-alone trial — owning or possessing a dog when it has attacked other persons — dog attack — bite — dangerous dog — non-compliance — failure to secure dog — absence of fault — Dog Control Act 1996, ss 2, 52A & 57(2) — Hamilton City Council v Fairweather [2002] NZAR 477 — Walker v Nelson City Council [2017] NZHC 750. The three defendants faced two charges of owning or possessing a dog when it has attacked other persons, a strict liability offence. The first defendant was the owner of the dog and at the time of the offending the dog was residing at the second and third defendants' property in their possession. The dog had attacked and bitten three people. The first attack resulted in the dog being classified as a dangerous dog by the council, and the defendants were notified that it was a requirement that the dog be kept within a securely fenced portion of the property. The defendants had a month to comply, but the third defendant gave evidence that they did not comply and never intended to. The defendants ran a business from the property and the second and third victims were attacked when visiting this business. The second incident resulted in the council giving a fresh notice to secure the dog. The third victim was attacked around one month later. The defendants raised an absence of fault defence. To make out this defence, it must be shown that there was no other possible preventative step that could have been taken to avoid the attacks. The Judge found the defendants' actions fell well short of this threshold. The defendants had been notified twice that the dog needed to be kept more securely. All three defendants were found guilty on both charges. Judgment Date: 5 August 2019.