Wood v Logan City Council[2025] QCAT 229

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. [1]
   In these proceedings Rowan James Wood (“the Applicant”) seeks a review of the decision of the Logan City Council (“the Council”) made on 25 May 2023 to issue a Destruction Order in respect of Mr Wood’s dog “Scooby” (“the Dog”).

Background Facts

2. [2]
   The Applicant is the owner of the dog, Scooby. The details about that dog are as follows:

   1. Breed: Bullmastiff, male and desexed
   2. Colour: Caramel
   3. Date of Birth: 25 September 2019
3. [3]
   On 16 March 2023, the Council stated that at 2:40 pm Scooby attacked a person in a public place causing an injury through a bite to the victim’s person and fear to a child in the company of the victim. At the time of that event the dog was identified as “Scooby” a caramel and white desexed Bullmastiff x Shar Pei, born on 25 September 2019. The victim provided a verbal and written statement of the event along with photos. According to the Council, this event was in wholly unprovoked circumstances causing injury through the bite.
4. [4]
   As a consequence of the events of 16 March 2023, the Council on 11 April 2023 gave notice to the Applicant that it proposed to declare the Dog a “Declared Dangerous Dog” in reliance upon Chapter 4 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (“the AM Act”). The Applicant was invited to make written representations on or before 2 May 2023 to show why the proposed declaration should not be made.
5. [5]
   On 15 April 2023, the Council says that it received a report that the dog attacked a neighbour who was inside of the Applicant’s property while the Applicant was present. This attack caused the neighbour several lacerations to his chest, arms and hands. The Council said it had evidence identifying the Dog along with verbal and written statements and photographs relating to the incident and the Applicant’s dog enclosure.
6. [6]
   On 24 April 2023, the Council gave a “Destruction Order” Notice to the Applicant stating that it proposed to destroy the Dog. That decision was based upon events of:

   1. 16 March 2023 where the dog attacked a person in a public place causing injury and fear to a child in the company of the victim; and
   2. 15 April 2023 when the dog attacked a person in the front yard of the Applicant’s home, causing injury through multiple bites to the person.
7. [7]
   The Applicant was advised that he may apply for an internal review of the “Destruction Order”.
8. [8]
   On 4 May 2023, the Applicant gave notice to the Council that he required a review of the “Destruction Order” decision.
9. [9]
   On 9 May 2023, the Council gave the Applicant notice of seizure and impounding of Scooby.
10. [10]
    On 25 May 2023, the Council concluded the internal review requested by the Applicant and decided to uphold the “Destruction Order” for Scooby.
11. [11]
    On 28 July 2023, the Council issued the Applicant with a “Combined Information Notice” declaring the Dog was now subject to a “Dangerous Dog Declaration” to take effect on 18 August 2023 and also a “Destruction Order” proposing to destroy the dog 21 days after notice of the order. The Council stated the Declarations were made based on the following incidents:

    1. the “Regulated Dog Declaration” was;
       1. (i)
          On 16 March 2023, at approximately 2:40 pm the subject dog attacked a person in a public place. The attack caused injury through bite to the victim person, and fear to a child in the company of the victim.
    2. the “Destruction Order” was;
       1. (i)
          On 16 March 2023, at approximately 2:40 pm the subject dog attacked a person in a public place. The attack caused injury through bite to the victim person, and fear to a child in the company of the victim.
       1. (ii)
          On 15 April 2023, at approximately 10 am the subject dog attacked a person in the front yard of the subject property. The attack caused injury through multiple bites to the person.
12. [12]
    The Notice to the Applicant said that the reasons for the decision was based upon an investigation report prepared by the authorised person in which all the evidence on hand was reviewed and considerations were made based upon the subject dog attacking a person in a public place in wholly unprovoked circumstances causing injury through bite. The Notice specifically stated that the reason for the “Destruction Order” was:

    1. the subject dog did attack a person in a public place in wholly unprovoked circumstances causing injury through bite; and
    2. the subject dog did attack a person in a public place causing injury through the bite while a Dangerous Dog Proposal Notice was in force.
13. [13]
    On 10 May 2023, the Applicant filed in the Tribunal an Application to stay a decision made by the Council on 24 April 2023. However, subsequently the Tribunal made Directions on 19 June 2023 granting the Applicant leave to file in the Tribunal, and to give a copy to the Council, an Application to review a decision being the internal review decision of the Council of 25 May 2023. The Applicant filed an Application on 22 June 2023 in compliance with the Directions and these proceedings continue based upon a review of the Council’s decision made on 25 May 2023.
14. [14]
    The Applicant raised the following issues in the Application to review a decision:

    1. The Council provided no information about strategies or requirement for keeping a “dangerous dog”;
    2. No controls were implemented in an effort to ensure an incident would not occur;
    3. In the incident on 15 April 2023 Scooby was provoked when he was hit without consent;
    4. Council has provided no opportunity to put measures in place for a “dangerous dog”;
    5. No checks were performed by Council that all steps had been properly implemented and exhausted before moving to destruction;
    6. The Applicant said he has complied with all council requirements on previous issues. The Council have ignored facts that could have affected the process and destruction notice;
    7. There were other resorts in this situation and the “last resort” of destruction of Scooby had not been reached. 

Tribunals Jurisdiction to review the Decision

15. [15]
    The Tribunal’s review jurisdiction is conferred on the Tribunal by an enabling Act to review a decision made or taken to have been made.^[1]
16. [16]
    A person who is given a review notice for a decision may apply to the Tribunal, as provided under the QCAT Act, for an external review of the decision.^[2] A review notice is given by the Chief Executive to the Applicant by way of a notice of the review decision following an internal review.^[3] The decision dated 25 May 2024 given to the Applicant is a review notice for the purpose of these proceedings. Accordingly, the AM Act is the “enabling Act” for these proceedings.
17. [17]
    The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine these proceedings provided the Applicant has applied to the Tribunal to exercise its review jurisdiction for a reviewable decision.^[4] The Applicant has filed such an Application to review a decision on 22 June 2023 and accordingly the Tribunal has jurisdiction and can proceed to hear and determine the review.
18. [18]
    The Tribunal is to review the decision by way of a fresh hearing on the merits and is to produce the correct and preferable decision.^[5]
19. [19]
    In conducting the review jurisdiction in respect of a reviewable decision, the tribunal may:

    1. confirm or amend the decision; or
    2. set aside the decision and substituted its own decision; or
    3. set aside the decision and return the matter for reconsideration to the decision-maker for the decision, with the directions the tribunal considers appropriate.

The AM Act and making of Declarations

20. [20]
    The purpose of the AM Act is to provide effective management of regulated dogs and promote responsible ownership.^[6] That is achieved by imposing obligations on particular persons to exercise effective control of dogs in particular circumstances and ensure dogs do not attack or cause fear.
21. [21]
    Chapter 4 of the AM Act contains provisions under the heading “Regulated dogs”. The purpose of Chapter 4 is to:^[7]

    1. protect the community from damage or injury, or risk of damage or injury, from regulated dogs; and
    2. ensure regulated dogs are;
       1. (i)
          not a risk to community health or safety; and
       1. (ii)
          controlled and kept in a way consistent with community expectations and rights of individuals.
22. [22]
    A regulated dog is:^[8]

    1. a declared dangerous dog; or
    2. a declared menacing dog.
23. [23]
    A declared dangerous dog is a dog declared under s 94 of the AM Act to be a dangerous dog.^[9]
24. [24]
    Any local government may declare a particular dog to be a declared dangerous dog.^[10] However, such a declaration can only be made if the dog:^[11]

    1. has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or
    2. may, in the opinion of an authorised person having regard to the way the dog has behaved towards a person or another animal, seriously attack, or act in a way that causes fear to the person or animal.
25. [25]
    A declaration made under this section is a regulated dog declaration:^[12]

    1. in relation to a person – attack the person in a way that causes the death of, or grievous bodily harm or bodily harm to the person; or
    2. in relation to an animal – attack the animal in a way that causes the death of the animal or maims or wounds the animal. 
26. [26]
    The owner, or the responsible person for, the dog in a proposed declaration notice must ensure compliance with the following conditions:

    1. The dog must not be in or at a place other than the relevant place for the dog unless it is muzzled except where the dog is in a vehicle in or at a place and the dog is in an enclosed part of the vehicle and is enclosed or restrained in a way that prevents the dog or any part of it from moving outside the enclosed part of the vehicle.^[13]
    2. There are other conditions for regulated dogs.^[14]
27. [27]
    If a dog is a regulated dog, then an authorised person may immediately destroy the dog if:^[15]

    1. the authorised person reasonably believes the dog is dangerous and the authorised person cannot control the dog; or
    2. the owner of the dog has asked the authorised person to destroy the dog. 
28. [28]
    Where the dog is a “regulated dog” and s 127 of the AM Act does not authorise the destruction of the dog then:

    1. if the dog has seriously attacked a person or an animal the authorised person must make a destruction order in relation to the dog; or
    2. if the dog has not seriously attacked a person or an animal, the authorised person may make a destruction order in relation to the dog.

The meaning of “seriously attack” means, in relation to a person, an attack that causes the death of, or grievous bodily harm or bodily harm to, the person.^[16]

29. [29]
    Where the Council has made a regulated dog declaration but has not given the owner of the dog an information notice, then the Council can make a concurrent declaration for the destruction the dog.^[17]

Application to Stay a Decision made by the Council on 24 April 2023

30. [30]
    On 10 May 2023, the Applicant filed in the Tribunal an Application to stay the decision of the Council made on 24 April 2023 (now being dealt within these proceedings as the decision made 25 May 2023).
31. [31]
    On 19 June 2023, the Tribunal made the following orders:

The subject dog, Scooby, is not to be destroyed unless the external review to the Tribunal is finally decided or is otherwise ended and the destruction order still remains in place.

Event of 16 March 2023

32. [32]
    The evidence before the Tribunal included details of an event where Scooby attacked and a person was bitten by the Dog.
33. [33]
    The details of this event are described by the Council as follows:

The victim person and his 4 yo nephew were walking up a street (the name of the street been provided to the Tribunal) when the subject dog appeared. The subject dog came towards the victim person, who placed himself between the dog and the child. The dog approached the victim and, without provocation, bit him on the left hip. The victim yelled out and the dog retreated. A neighbour (the neighbour has been identified to the Tribunal) placed the dog back in its yard and helped the victim and the child get home. 

34. [34]
    The Council provided evidence of this event from the following sources:

    1. Conducted an interview with a witness who was a resident in the adjacent area to the Applicant’s property and where the event occurred. That witness stated:
       1. (i)
          the Dog was out on the road;
       1. (ii)
          it isn’t the first time that the Dog has been out;
       1. (iii)
          the victim and the young child were heading towards the alleyway;
       1. (iv)
          the Dog bit the man on the stomach;
       1. (v)
          the witness’s husband went out to help and put the Dog back into its property where the Applicant resides;
       1. (vi)
          the Dog owner came out and put the Dog on a tether;
       1. (vii)
          then the Dog owner “took off”;
       1. (viii)
          the witness’s husband drove the victim and the young child to their home;
       1. (ix)
          the witness’s husband said the victim maybe autistic.
    2. The Council conducted an interview with the victim, who was an adult but had been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and was supported and represented by his mother for the purposes of the interview. The Council “Report” says that it took several days to get a clear picture of what had transpired during the attack due to the victims fear and difficulty communicating the details of the event. A written statement was obtained from the person the subject of the event who said that “biting” was involved in the attack resulting in “bruising to the left hip and 4 puncture marks.” A statement provided also confirms that the person sought medical treatment as follows:

Went to local doctor. Seen the nurse. They clean the wound. Advised to change dressing daily. If any changes go straight back to the doctor.

3. The written statement from the victim of the attack, in response to the question, describe why you were fearful, the victim made this statement:

I had my 4 year old nephew with me and thought the dog would attack him as well, I did not know what else the dog would do.

4. The written statement that the victim describes assistance which he obtained from a local neighbour. The victim stated:

The neighbour came out to see what happened. The neighbour put the dog in its yard. The neighbour’s wife got me an ice pack and a glass of water – my nephew was scared and wouldn’t move. It was all a blur – the neighbour ended up taking myself and nephew home in his car. He offered to stay but I declined. He gave me his number in case I needed it. Both my parents were on their way home. A friend took me to the doctors. The nurse cleaned the wound and placed some betadine on it and dressed it. I have to go back if it looks infected 

5. Photographs were taken of the victim’s injury as a result of the bite from the Dog. Colour photographs were provided to the Tribunal which showed injuries which had penetrated the skin of the victim which would be an open wound but for any medical attention. Photographs were taken shortly after the event and then taken during the healing process of the wounds. 
6. Photographs were taken of the Dog who was identified as “Scooby”, born on 25 September 2019.
7. Conducted an interview, by telephone, with the Applicant who said he did not witness the incident but confirmed he have a knowledge of that incident. The “Report” contains the following record of that interview:

Rowan confirmed that Scooby was being contained on a tether and harness due to Scooby regularly escaping from the 6’ enclosure. The Applicant was advised that Scooby would be seized and held at the Animal Management Centre until a freestanding enclosure with anti-dig footings, and the roof was provided. Rowan Wood agreed and an appointment was made for Animal Management Officers to attend Rowan’s property at 4.00 pm that day to impound Scooby.  

35. [35]
    On 16 March 2023, Officers from the Council attended the Applicant’s property at 4.25 pm and observed that the dog was tethered in the front yard. It was said that the dog “was highly reactive towards Officers” and that:

No free access to front door and no persons home at time of attendance. Officers attempted to call subject dog owner Rowan Wood, no answer. Voice message was left requesting urgent call back.

36. [36]
    On 17 March 2023, Council Officers contacted the Applicant and negotiated a voluntary seizure of the dog while a freestanding enclosure with anti-dig footings and a roof were constructed at the Applicant’s property. The Applicant was also advised that a Dangerous Dog Declaration would shortly be issued for the dog for the incident on 16 March 2023.
37. [37]
    The Council also sent a letter dated 17 March 2023 to the Applicant providing a summary of what the Applicant was required to provide by way of an enclosure suitable to contain Scooby. The letter also referred to Local Law 4.1 which did not recognise either an electric boundary collar system and tethers as containment methods.  
38. [38]
    On 20 March 2023, the Applicant provided to the Council photographs and videos demonstrating that the enclosure had been constructed in accordance with earlier directions from the Council. The Council approved the release of Scooby to the newly constructed enclosure at the Applicant’s property.
39. [39]
    The Applicant has said that he cannot defend actions of Scooby, especially biting a person. The Applicant’s submissions appear to refer to this event when a person was bitten by Scooby and he states:^[18]

This did occur with a victim outside my property. It is unclear from victim statements what occurred as his account is blurry. I was only aware as (a neighbour) returned Scooby to my yard and I went outside to investigate the situation. When I realised there was a person’s bitten I quickly ran back inside and returned as quick as I could with a first aide kit. I then attended first aid to the victim including anti-septic wash and a cold pack. The neighbour (wife) had provided the victim with water. The neighbour provided the victim and the child a lift home in their vehicle which I was present for all of. 

Event of 15 April 2023

40. [40]
    A neighbour of the Applicant said that on Saturday, 15 April 2023 he was attacked by Scooby. The circumstances of that attack are described as follows:

Two dogs from a local property were roaming the street and aggressing with Scooby through the front fence of the Applicants property. The person chased the roaming dogs down the street and a verbal altercation with the roaming dog owners ensured. Following the encounter, the person returned to the Applicants property where Scooby and the Applicant remained in the front yard. The person entered the fenced front yard to check on the Applicant, at which time Scooby set upon him. The person described fighting Scooby off by repeatedly hitting him and expressed his fear for the likely outcome had someone not as physically capable being faced with the same vicious encounter. The person described his neighbourly friendship with the Applicant, and how for the last 3 years he had usually been the one to place Scooby back in the yard when Scooby would escape. This has been the case on the previous event on 16 March 2023. 

41. [41]
    This event was not made known to Council Offices until 20 April 2023. A discussion continued with Council Officers and the neighbour was informed that Council’s responsibility was to ensure public safety which would likely outweigh the neighbour’s unwillingness to formally report this event to Council. The Council produced to the Tribunal a transcript of the interview with this neighbour.
42. [42]
    In a statement from the Council’s Animal Collection Officer, it records the conversation with the neighbour to involved in the incident of 16 March 2023 as follows:

I approached these residents to enquire about dogs wandering in the street. The male resident identified himself and proceeded to tell us that the dogs from down the road got out “the other day” and came up and was stirring “Scooby” up from the other side of the fence. I knew the male resident was referring to Scooby the dog from the Applicants property. The male resident told us how the applicant was out in his yard and Scooby was out of his enclosure. The male resident then showed us multiple bites that he received from Scooby on his hands, arms, stomach and chest. All of the wounds were consistent with dog bites.

The wounds I observed were quite severe and would have required medical attention 

43. [43]
    Later, on 20 April 2023 Council Officers attended at the Applicant’s residence and took Scooby from within the house and placed the Dog into the approved enclosure. The Applicant had a discussion with the Council Officers and denied that the dog had been wandering. The events of 15 April 2023 were discussed and the Report from the Council states:

Rowan initially denied any incident had occurred before pivoting and stating that the person had entered his yard and punched Scooby, causing Scooby to retaliate and attack. Rowan could not offer any explanation as to why the person would attack Scooby. After approximately 55 minutes of discussion and negotiation Scooby was seized and impounded.

44. [44]
    The Applicant refers to this event in his Submissions to the Tribunal where he states:^[19]

Scooby was under constant supervision at this point and when the second incident occurred (the neighbour) opted to come into the yard after problem dogs were out roaming at our fences. The neighbour willingly came into the yard when Scooby was excited to try and calm him which was not abnormal. The neighbour would normally come in the yard with Scooby jumping and barking but he would be calmed quickly by being told off and pushed down. When Scooby would not do that in Chris’s way, almost immediately he was struck multiple times in the face with a closed fist which I did not approve of resulting in a scuffle between the two before Scooby was secured in the cage. Scooby never left the yard, initially attacked or warranted such treatment for his level of behaviour as jumping and barking was a regular occurrence with the neighbour. I was apologised to later by the neighbour in person shortly after.

45. [45]
    The Applicant does not agree with the way the neighbour and his wife have reported these incidents. He says in respect of his neighbours:

They have been unclear to myself and council about their claims, they have reported my animal for being a risk at the same time as the neighbours willingly walking into my yard while Scooby and myself are present and attacking my animal for jumping in a psych meant provoking an incident.

I believe this is why they have not complied with council or myself on further reports or evidence as they are aware the neighbour was wrong in his actions and this was communicated to me via text  

46. [46]
    The Applicant says that Scooby was then kept under extreme supervision until the council arrived to seize the dog.
47. [47]
    Obviously, from the above discussion the events of 15 April 2023 are very much disputed. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and materials provided in the proceedings by the Applicant and by the Council. The Tribunal considers that it is highly improbable that the neighbour, who previously returned Scooby to the Applicant’s property voluntarily on a number of other occasions without incident, for some unexplained reasons, enter the Applicant’s property and commence to hit the Dog with a closed fist. This version is totally unrealistic. Even so, as the dog was outside of its enclosure it should be muzzled and this event would not have occurred, The Tribunal accepts the evidence provided by the neighbour and the council, notwithstanding that the neighbour was very reluctant to be an informant of the event, and does not accept the evidence of the Applicant which is rejected. The Tribunal finds that on 15 April 2024 the neighbour suffered injuries to his hands and adjacent areas from his encounter with Scooby in the manner explained by him to Council Officers and also in accordance with the version of events supplied by the Council to the Tribunal. This acceptance of the neighbour’s evidence is made notwithstanding his reluctance to be an informant of these events which impact upon the Applicant.

Declarations made by Council

48. [48]
    On 11 April 2023, the Council gave notice to the Applicant that it proposed to declare “Scooby” a dangerous dog.
49. [49]
    On 24 April 2023, the Council issued a “Destruction Order” for Scooby and gave notice of that Order to the Applicant in reliance on s 127 of the AM Act.
50. [50]
    On 4 May 2023, the Applicant made application for an internal review by the Council of the “Destruction Order” made on 24 April 2020.
51. [51]
    On 25 May 2023, the “Destruction Order” was upheld following a review by the Council Officers earlier decision of 24 April 2023.
52. [52]
    On 28 July 2023, the Council gave a “Combined Information Notice” to the Applicant that it was appropriate in reliance on s 127A of the AM Act to make:

    1. a regulated dog declaration that that “Scooby” was a declared dangerous dog; and 
    2. a “Destruction Order” for “Scooby”.

Other Events Referred to by Council

53. [53]
    The Council has included with the documents provided to the Tribunal a number of previous Customer Service Requests relating to Scooby.
54. [54]
    It is noted that in the Declarations made by the Council on that reliance was not made on these events referred to in earlier Customer Service Request. However, in summary those documents relate to the following events.
55. [55]
    An incident on 2 August 2021 around 12:10 pm. An Australia Post postie was knocked to the ground by a dog while delivering mail at the Applicant’s address. The owner came out and apologised but the postie would like the enclosure looked at as the fence is not high enough to keep the dog enclosed in the property. The postie suffered a sore shoulder.
56. [56]
    An incident on 2 October 2021 at approximately 12:30 pm. A person was walking initially across the road from the Applicant’s home and then walked up a pedestrian walkway to the right of and next to the Applicant’s home when a dog started running towards the person from the carport. A local neighbour assisted the person and attempted to remove the dog however the dog kept turning around to attack the person. The neighbour knew the dog and said this had happened before. The person did not suffer any injuries. 
57. [57]
    On 11 July 2022, an incident occurred at the Applicant’s premises. The details are not fully set out but from documents provided by the Council, a person was involved with a dog which was described as:

Light brown in colour, comes up to the caller’s knee, medium to tall size, dog escaped the fence, there are two dogs, the black one stayed inside the fence.

Whatever happened in that incident it said that the person rolled his ankle as he fell and has been to the doctors and has had painkillers.

58. [58]
    Also, on 11 July 2022, it appears that there was a further incident. This incident involved a neighbour of the Applicant’s home. The dog was identified as Scooby. This incident is reported as follows:

Customer stated that this dog is constantly getting out of his property, there is a big 6 foot fence however he seems to be charging through the fence panels and knocking them out, making his way out. The customer has put the dog back in his property numerous times and the owner is aware that this is happening but nothing has been done and the dog is still getting out regularly.

59. [59]
    On 6 October 2022, a Council Patrol was involved with a wandering dog which was identified by a neighbour as Scooby from the Applicant’s address. The documents of that report indicate that the concern was a roaming dog in the street and it was undecided whether the dog was secured.
60. [60]
    On 20 April 2023, Council had reports of a dog roaming the street in the vicinity where the Applicant resides. Council investigated that event as the description of the dog was similar to that of Scooby. However, Council obtained a photograph of the dog the subject of the event which was identified as “Brax”. The dog “Brax” was a physical match, in particular the red collar and silver tag, with the dog roaming on 20 April 2023. The Council were able to rule out that “Scooby” was the dog reported to have been roaming on 20 April 2023.
61. [61]
    The Applicant disputes these events. He says:

My animal never roamed through the neighbourhood. Every single incident that ever occurred was reported and found right in front of my house. Several times my dog had been mistaken with other roaming dogs due to similar appearance and these have been reported multiple times as well. Scooby was seized with an attack and alleged rush incident the same day. To the rush incident, there was no evidence at all to support this claim with myself and another neighbour telling offices other dogs that weren’t Scooby were out that day. Scooby was under constant supervision by myself as I was off from work that day. These other dogs thought to be from another residence in the street had also been seen out roaming the street and reported again even after Scooby had been seized. 

62. [62]
    The Applicant makes further allegations against the Council including lack of due care to properly investigate claims before taking action; the council have not explained how my dog escaped; reports about Scooby were never substantiated with any written records of photos.
63. [63]
    However, the Applicant does say that he cannot defend some of the actions of Scooby, especially biting a person.

Assessment By Council Officers of Scooby while Impounded

64. [64]
    On 9 May 2023, following in the Councils seizure of Scooby who was examined by a veterinarian reported as follows:

Very lean body weight. thinning of coat over dorsal paws – front and upper left fore. Hair loss and reddened axilla – armpits. Small pressure mark on left outside hip – no sign of lameness. Left shoulder – small pen end sized raised mass. Tail tip – trauma – abrasion, not actively bleeding. Hyper alert barking, did not open Pam   

65. [65]
    On 26 July 2023, an Animal Assessment and Rehoming Officer of the Council provided observations about Scooby while being impounded in the Council facilities. Those observations are:

During Scooby’s time impounded I have observed Scooby attempting to ‘claw’ the pen door open with his front feet and biting at the door to assist. Scooby is very strong when doing this. In my experience this is a learned behaviour usually displayed by dogs with a history of escape. It is my opinion that Scooby would be able to use this learned behaviour to escape via doors and gate unless they were suitably reinforced.

Scooby is a very heightened and anxious dog and displays confident aggressive behaviour. Scooby can only be handled with a catch-pole by experience staff due to bite risk.

66. [66]
    The Applicant has also commented on the way in which the Council had impounded Scooby. He says:

Scooby has since been left in a tiny cage that had caused him multiple injuries and my visits include getting his blood is flicked in my face every time. He stinks as no baths are allowed and they do not provide any ways to get a blanket to the animals in an open wall pen during winter. I do not think council understand the effect this will have on an animal for extended periods.

He is emaciated and stressed and he had picked up giardia several months after being seized which I paid for all treatments myself as well as feed and medications. Council have only taken observations of Scooby in moments of extreme stress or anxiety usually under catch pole by people unknown to him. Scooby has also had observations of his overall behaviour taken in Council confinement under stress, injury and sickness. None of which is reported it in check ins or council statements 

Tribunal’s Review of the Council Decision of 25 May 2023

67. [67]
    The Applicant says that he has complied with all requirements by the Council. He says:^[20]

I have shown many times I have tried to understand and take appropriate actions quickly throw out every compliance I was given.

I feel it is council who have failed to ensure any of the controls and requirements were communicated effectively to myself to ensure that no incidents to the public should occur when confirmed actions are in place by the owner.

I do truly care for anyone who was affected by Scooby, even followed up with the persons walled in these incidents afterwards.

Scooby was declared a dangerous dog while in seizure from council after he was issued a destruction notice and has never been in my care under dangerous dog controls.

It is my understanding that destruction must be in the last possible action

I was never given a chance to implement all be issued dangerous dog compliance before seizure, then all options have not been tried appropriately.

Until the neighbour provoked an attack from Scooby in my yard the controls that I had been using were working, even the neighbour mentioned this in his conversation to counsel.

68. [68]
    In conducting this review of the decision made by the Council on 25 May 2023 the Tribunal is required to arrive at the “correct and preferable decision”. The outcome of the review is dependent upon the evidence and material before the Tribunal considered in the context of the relevant legislation to which reference has already been made.
69. [69]
    There have been a number of cases in the Tribunal which considered the issue of a destruction order involving a dog or animal (See Thomas v Ipswich City Council,^[21] Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management^[22] and more recently Piperides v Brisbane City Council.^[23]
70. [70]
    In Nguyen, the Tribunal said:^[24]

[31]…the essential question is whether the dog can be controlled taking into consideration the threat, or likely threat, to the safety of other animals or to people by attacking them or causing fear, posed by the dog. 

[32]Determining whether a dog can be controlled will require a consideration by a decision-maker of a range of matters which might include: 

1. the relevant history of the behaviour of the dog giving rise to the consideration of the making of a destruction order;

2. any other relevant history of the behaviour of the dog, including the circumstances giving rise to the declaration that the dog was a regulated dog;

3. the current behaviour of the dog including whether the behaviour of the dog has been, and/or could be, modified through appropriate training; 

4. the arrangements for the dog at its place of residence including the security of any enclosure and whether any interaction by the dog with persons, including household members and other persons entering upon the property, post a threat of harm to such persons; 

5. the risk the dog poses to community health or safety including the risk of harm to people and other animals outside the place of residence of the dog; 

6. compliance by the owner of the dog with any permit conditions imposed as a result of the dog being declared a regulated dog; 

7. whether the owner of the dog demonstrates insight into and understanding of the dog’s behaviour and has acted appropriately to mitigate any risk posed by the dog to people or animals; 

8. the rights of individuals including the owner of the dog.

[33]The decision-maker must also take into account the purposes of the Act generally, the purpose of Chapter 4 specifically and how the Act states those purposes are to be achieved. As the appeal tribunal said in Thomas any decision must be made in the context of the legislative scheme, and specifically Chapter 4 of the AM Act in which the protection of the community is clearly given a higher priority than the individual rights of dog owners.

71. [71]
    In Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council the Appeal Tribunal said it was appropriate for the above matters in the Nguyen case to be taken into consideration as well as taking in the likelihood of the dog’s owner complying with a dangerous dog declaration.
72. [72]
    In the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion in these proceedings the following matters are taken into account.
73. [73]
    In respect of the issue whether Scooby can be controlled taking into consideration the threat, or likely threat, to the safety of persons or to other animals by attacking them or causing fear, posed by that dog, the Tribunal is very influenced by the events of 16 March 2023 and 15 April 2023. If the significance of the Dogs behaviour and its aggression was not apparent to the Applicant by 16 March 2023 it should have been when the Council seized that Dog on 17 March and refused its return until 20 March 2023 when the freestanding enclosure, with anti—dig footings and roof had been constructed at the Applicant’s property.  This should have been reinforced with notice in March 2023 of Council’s intention to declare Scooby a dangerous dog. Notwithstanding those facts, the Applicant, on the evidence, disregarded the requirement to keep the Dog in the enclosure which led to the disputed incident of 15 April 2023 which has already been referred to above. The evidence demonstrates the Applicant did not particularly like keeping the Dog in the specifically constructed enclosure and would let the Dog out of the enclosure to be either in the house or in the yard at his property. There is no evidence that at any material time did the Applicant muzzle the Dog. The unprovoked attack by Scooby on the pedestrian, accompanied by a 4 year old child, on 16 March 2023 and the unexplained attack on the neighbour on 15 April 2024 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Tribunal that Scooby cannot be controlled so as to avoid causing injury or a threat or likely injury or a threat to members of the public. The Tribunal has very serious concerns about the aggression and the strength of Scooby based on the events of 16 March 2023 and 15 April 2023 and the Dogs very real potential as a threat, or likely threat, to the safety of members of the public.
74. [74]
    In determining whether Scooby can be controlled the Tribunal considers the following matters.
75. [75]
    There is evidence, albeit disputed by the Applicant, of a history of aggression towards the public and anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the Applicant’s residence prior to 16 March 2024. That evidence has already been referred to above.
76. [76]
    The circumstances giving rise to a declaration over being a regulated dog are considered particularly in the context of the events of 16 March 2023 involving the presence of a 4-year-old child. That incident is not contested. It appears that the Applicant was at his residence on that date but unaware that Scooby was on the street outside of his residence.
77. [77]
    The current behaviour of Scooby has not modified. The Applicant’s evidence seems to suggest that Scooby is a benign animal and is very well controlled. Independent evidence from the Council Offices is that in their observations of the Dog while it is impounded in their care is that:

Scooby is a very heightened and anxious dog and displays confident aggressive behaviour. Scooby can only be handled with a catch-pole by experience staff due to bite risk.

78. [78]
    The Tribunal prefers the end of the pendant evidence from the Council Offices to that of the Applicant, the Applicant appears to give a very “subjective” description whereas the Evidence from the Council is based on objective criteria.
79. [79]
    The arrangements for the keeping of Scooby at the Applicant’s premises have been approved by the Council. That involves the enclosure, anti-dig footings and a roof. The only problem is the evidence demonstrates the Applicant does not abide by the requirement to keep the Dog in that enclosure. As previously stated, the Applicant has a preference for releasing Scooby from the enclosure so that it has access to the outdoors for an external surrounds of that residence. That is neither satisfactory nor acceptable.
80. [80]
    The risk that Scooby poses to community health and safety including the risk of harm to people and other animals outside of the Applicant’s place of residence has been amply demonstrated by the events of 16 March 2023 and 15 April 2023. Those events do not suggest that there is a low health and safety. Rather, it is an elevated risk given the aggression and strength of the Dog.
81. [81]
    The issue of compliance by the Applicant with conditions imposed by the Council is also unsatisfactory. While the Applicant was agreeable to the construction of the enclosure according to the requirements of the Council, following the release of Scooby on about 20 April 2023 the evidence suggests that the Applicant did not comply with the requirement to keep the Dog in the enclosure. The Applicant took it upon himself to decide that the Dog could roam freely either internally or externally to his residence at time zone occasions which suited him. The evidence does not support the criteria that the Applicant is compliant with council conditions imposed upon him for the management of Scooby.  
82. [82]
    The evidence provided by the Applicant suggest to the Tribunal that he is in denial about events which have attracted the Councils attention to Scooby throughout 2022 and 2023 whereas other persons and local residents support the involvement of that dog in various incidents. The evidence of the Applicant suggests to the Tribunal that he continues unreasonably to downplay the contribution of his Dog to the events referred to in these proceedings, particularly in 2022. It also suggests that he has little insight or appreciation to the danger by his Dog.
83. [83]
    Subject to issues of rights under the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), the rights of individuals including the rights of the Applicant have to be considered in in the light of the purposes of the AM Act. Those rights would rely upon the effective management of regulated dogs and the responsible ownership of dogs.^[25] These purposes involve considerations of the protection of the community from damage or injury, or risk of damage or injury from regulated dogs including allowing authorised persons to see use all destroy dogs in particular circumstances.^[26] Accordingly, the interests of individuals as members of the public require careful and serious consideration as opposed to the rights of an individual, such as the Applicant to own and control a dog or other animal. In these proceedings the need for the protection of the individuals overrides the rights of the Applicant to and control Scooby.
84. [84]
    The Applicant also states that has had no, or no adequate advice, from the Council on how to manage or retain Scooby in suitable conditions at his property. This is contradicted by a letter from the Council dated 17 March 2023 to the Applicant providing a summary of what the Applicant was required to provide by way of an enclosure suitable to contain Scooby. The letter also referred to Local Law 4.1 which did not recognise either an electric boundary collar system and tethers as containment methods. The Tribunal considers that the Council did provide adequate instructions relating to the housing of Scooby in the enclosure which was constructed by the Applicant and approved by the Council on 20 March 2023. As a consequence, Scooby was released by the Council into the care of the Applicant.  
85. [85]
    Scooby was seized by Council Offices on 9 May 2023 pursuant to section 125 of the AMA Act. The relevant provisions in the AMA Act dealing with the destruction of dog seized on 9 May 2023 is section 127.^[27] The operation of s 127 and s 127AA of the AMA Act in relation to the destruction of dogs was recently discussed in Piperides v Brisbane City Council.^[28]
86. [86]
    The operation of s 127(4) of the AMA Act was considered in Bradshaw v Moreton Bay Regional Council where the Appeal Tribunal said:

The Council’s power to make the destruction order was based on s 127(4) of the AM Act which does not prescribe how the power to make a destruction order is to be exercised nor what factors the decision-maker must take into account. But open-ended discretions are not to be exercised at the whim of their decision- make it. The scope, purpose, and objects of the legislation must be taken into account to interpret the extent and ambit of discretion.

As stated in Thomas v Ipswich City Council [2015] QCATA 97 at [18]; 

It is clear that the AM Act is primarily directed towards the effective management and responsible ownership of dogs and that the destruction of a dog is a ‘last resort.’ It is generally where the mechanisms of the Act to manage fail, or are ineffective, that destruction arises. The essential question is whether the dog constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the safety of other animals or people, by attacking them or causing fear, to the extent that the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of the dog.

87. [87]
    The issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether Scooby constitutes, or is likely to constitute:

    1. a threat to the safety of other animals or to people by attacking them or causing fear; and
    2. can the threat only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of Scooby.
88. [88]
    For the first of those issues, the evidence before the Tribunal and in particular the events of 16 March 2023 and 15 April 2023 demonstrate that Scooby is a threat to the safety of people by attacking them or causing fear. The Applicant seriously contests the issue that Scooby is a threat. The Tribunal has already accepted the evidence of the neighbour and other persons involved in the events of 16 March 2023 and 15 April 2023 in preference to the evidence from the Applicant. The Tribunal has already made findings that the evidence of those witnesses is accepted. The Tribunal accepts and makes the finding that Scooby is a threat to the safety of persons by attacking them or causing fear.
89. [89]
    The second issue is whether the threat which Scooby poses can only be satisfactory dealt with by the destruction of Scooby. That raises the question are there any other options available to satisfactory deal with Scooby, while acknowledging the objects of the legislation and that destruction of an animal is a ‘last resort’. There has been no evidence (assuming such evidence was available) put before the Tribunal that any “retraining” or behavioural modification is available that would be a satisfactory outcome for Scooby and would maintain an acceptable level of behaviour. The Applicant appears to be reliant upon the proposal that Scooby should be returned to him at his property and that he would manage the situation. However, that proposal has already been tried and tested and found wanting with the events of 16 March 2023 and 15 April 2023. That is not the answer. The Applicant has not put before the Tribunal any new proposal either in respect of housing of Scooby or how he would go about management in a better or more effective manner so as to establish that would be a satisfactory outcome rather than destruction of the dog .The Applicant has not provided any proposal which would give the Tribunal confidence Scooby would not be a threat to the safety of other people by attacking them or causing fear into the future. Unfortunately, the Tribunal is left in the position where the only option is the destruction of the dog. 
90. [90]
    For these reasons the Tribunal considers that the correct and preferable decision in these proceedings is to confirm the decision of the Council made on 25 May 2023. The Tribunal will make the orders to confirm that decision and to dismiss the Application to review the decision.

Human Rights Act

91. [91]
    Neither party made submissions whether the Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’) applies to these proceedings.
92. [92]
    The Tribunal must consider the human rights of the Applicant under the HR Act in reaching its decision in these proceedings.
93. [93]
    The Tribunal is an entity which acts in an administrative capacity and is bound to comply with the HR Act in conducting the review jurisdiction in relation to the Application filed by the Applicant.
94. [94]
    In considering the provisions of the AM Act, the Tribunal must to the extent possible that is consistent with the purposes of the HR Act to interpret that legislation in a way that is compatible with the Applicant’s human rights.^[29]
95. [95]
    The human rights of the Applicant include:^[30]

    1. recognition and equality before the law;
    2. property rights;
    3. fair hearing
96. [96]
    These human rights have to be considered by the Tribunal in the light of its exercise of the review jurisdiction in these proceedings.
97. [97]
    The Tribunal has made findings that the Applicant’s Application to review the Council’s decision of 25 May 2023 is dismissed and the Council’s decision is confirmed. This finding can possibly be a limitation on the human rights of the Applicant under the HR Act. This limits the Applicant’s entitlement future keeping and maintenance of Scooby and limits the Applicant’s equal treatment with other Applicants making Application to the Tribunal for a review of a decision made under the AM Act.
98. [98]
    However, any such limitation on the Applicant’s human rights arises from the provisions of the AM Act. While the Tribunal is required to make a decision that is compatible with human rights and is to give proper consideration to human rights relevant to the decision, the Tribunal can make such a decision if the Tribunal could not reasonably have acted differently or made a different decision because of a statutory provision.^[31]
99. [99]
    The AM Act creates a legislative scheme in relation to the effective management of regulated dogs and to promote responsible ownership of dogs. It has the purpose of protecting the community from damage or injury, or risk of damage or injury from regulated dogs and ensure that regulated dogs are not a risk to community health or safety and are controlled and kept in a way consistent with community expectations and the rights of individuals.
100. [100]
     This decision under the AM Act is made in accordance with statutory provisions and is not an arbitrary decision. It is a decision based upon the legislative scheme and is reasonable and justified in accordance with s 13 of the HR Act in the light of the purposes of the AM Act. The decision in these proceedings is made in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the legislation and has been interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights as required by s 48 of HR Act. In these circumstances any limitation on the human rights of the Applicants is reasonable and is justified in terms of section 8(b) of the HR Act.

Orders

101. [101]
     The Tribunal makes the following Orders:

     1. The decision of the Logan City Council made on 25 May 2023 in respect of a destruction order for the dog “Scooby” is confirmed.
     2. The Application to review a decision filed in the Tribunal on 22 June 2023 by Rowan James Wood is dismissed.