Sentencing — owning or possessing a dog that attacked other persons — destruction of dog — exceptional circumstances — Dog Control Act 1996, ss 57(3) & 77 — Auckland Council v Hill [2019] NZCA 296 — Halliday v New Plymouth District Council HC New Plymouth CRI-2005-443-11, 4 July 2005. The three defendants appeared for sentencing after being found guilty of two charges of owning or possessing a dog that attacked other persons. The dog was owned by one of the defendants but was living on the property of her parents (the other two defendants) at the time of the attacks. The dog had attacked three people. The first attack had resulted in the dog being classified as dangerous and the defendants receiving a notification that the dog needed to be kept in a secure area. The second attack occurred around a year later, resulting in another notification to the defendants. The third attack occurred around a month after that. It was the second and third attacks that were the basis of the charges. The owner of the dogs was deemed to be less culpable than her parents, as she had not been present at the time of the attacks, but she had also failed to ensure that her parents kept the dog away from members of the public visiting the property. She was fined $500. Her parents were fined $1000 each and were to pay $500 each emotional harm payment to the second person attacked. As per s 77 of the Dog Control Act, 50 per cent of the fines were to be paid to the prosecutor (Western Bay of Plenty District Council). Finally, there was an order for the destruction of the dog. There were no exceptional circumstances that would mean the dog's destruction was not warranted. The defendants had made a deliberate decision not to confine the dog in a secure area away from visiting members of the public, despite specific instructions to do so. The Judge noted that none of the attacks were the fault of the dog. They could have been avoided entirely if the defendants had been minded to prevent them. Judgment Date: 16 October 2019.