Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Carthew v Cairns Regional Council - [2025] QCAT 318

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Carthew v Cairns Regional Council[2025] QCAT 318

Carthew v Cairns Regional Council[2025] QCAT 318

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Carthew v Cairns Regional Council [2025] QCAT 318

PARTIES:

TIMOTHY CARTHEW

(applicant)

v

CAIRNS REGIONAL COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR292-24

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2025

HEARING DATE:

23 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Cairns

DECISION OF:

Member Pearce

ORDERS:

The decision of the Cairns Regional Council made on 29 November 2023 in respect of a destruction order for the dog “Boof” is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – DOG DESTRUCTION ORDERS – where dog attacked members of the public – where dog seized – whether discretion to issue destruction order in respect of the dog should be exercised – where dog had been declared a dangerous dog – effective management of regulated dogs – whether a dog constitutes, or is likely to constitute, a threat to the safety of persons by attacking them or causing fear to the extent that the threat may only be satisfactorily dealt with by the destruction of the dog

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld)

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No 2) [2019] QCATA 167

Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

No appearance

Respondent:

M. Dunstan, Preston Law representing Cairns Regional Council

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    In these proceedings Timothy Carthew (“the Applicant”) seeks a review of the decision of the Cairns Regional Council (“the Council”) made on 23 November 2023 to issue a Destruction Order in respect of Mr Carthew’s dog “Boof” (“the Dog”).

BackgroundFacts

  1. [2]
    The Applicant is the owner of the dog, Boof. The dog is a Pitbull cross and is a male.
  2. [3]
    On 9 August 2023, the Council stated that on that date Boof attacked a person in a public place, namely Southside Shopping Village causing an injury through a bite to the victim’s person. At the time of that event the dog was identified as “Boof”, a brown Pitbull cross male dog. The victim provided a verbal account stating she had been in an argument with another person and Boof attacked the victim. The victim sustained injuries to her right hand and left forearm which required urgent on-site first aid. The victim was transported to Cairns Base Hospital for further treatment.
  3. [4]
    On 4 October 2023 the Council received a call from a member of the public to report a dog attack that had occurred on the previous afternoon. The victim stated she had been approaching a makeshift camp at the old drive-in theatre site located at 710-714 Des Chalmers Drive, Woree (“the property”) to visit her daughter who was residing at the camp. As the victim approached, the dog ran out from behind a tarpaulin wall and attacked the victim, biting the victim’s forearm causing an 8cm long laceration. Shortly afterwards the Applicant appeared and was required to beat the dog in order to get the dog to release the victim’s arm. The Queensland Ambulance was called and transported the victim to hospital. A statement from the victim was obtained.
  4. [5]
    On 9 November 2023, Council were notified by Queensland Ambulance Service (“QAS”) reporting a dog attack that had occurred earlier that night at the same property. The victim had been breaking up a fight between the dog and a female dog named “Ruby”, caused by the dog getting within close proximity to Ruby’s puppies. Whilst breaking up the flight the victim fell between the two dogs, putting herself between Ruby and the puppies, causing Ruby to react and attack the victim. The victim confirmed she had been attacked by her own dogs. The QAS officers attended to a significant dog bite injury to the victim’s face resulting in significant disfiguration to the victim’s nose, causing the basal bine to be exposed. The victim also sustained deep bite wounds to the right tricep and left thigh as well as a puncture wound on the left shoulder. The victim was taken to Cairns Base Hospital where she underwent multiple surgeries to treat the dog bite injuries, including rhinoplasty and skin grafts to treat the injuries to the nose.
  5. [6]
    On 10 November 2023, the respondent returned to the location of the dog attack and seized the dog as well as the female dog named “Ruby” and 10 two-week-old puppies.
  6. [7]
    As a consequence of the events, the Council on 24 November 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 Animal Management Act” or “the Act”). The Applicant was invited to make written representations to show why the proposed declaration should not be made.
  7. [8]
    On 27 November 2023, the applicant submitted written representations in response to the Proposed Regulated Dog Declaration Notice.
  8. [9]
    On 29 November 2023 the respondent issued the applicant with a concurrent Proposed Regulated Dog Declaration Notice and Destruction Oder, wherein it proposed to concurrently declare the dog as dangerous and order the destruction of the dog pursuant to the Act.
  9. [10]
    On 15 December 2023, the applicant requested that the respondent conduct an internal review of the decision to issue a concurrent Proposed Regulated Dog Declaration and Destruction Order in relation to the dog.
  10. [11]
    After conducting an internal review of the matter, the respondent decided, on 8 April 2024, to confirm the original decisions made on 29 November 2023 to issue the applicant with a concurrent Regulated Dog Declaration and Destruction Order in relation to the dog and advised the applicant accordingly.

Tribunal’s Jurisdiction to review the Decision

  1. [12]
    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]
  2. [13]
    A person who is given a review notice for a decision may apply to the Tribunal, as provided under the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“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 Animal Management Act is the “enabling Act” for these proceedings.
  3. [14]
    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 and accordingly the Tribunal has jurisdiction and can proceed to hear and determine the review.
  4. [15]
    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]
  5. [16]
    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 Animal Management Act and the Making of Declarations

  1. [17]
    The purpose of the Animal Management 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.
  2. [18]
    Chapter 4 of the Animal Management 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. not a risk to community health or safety; and
      2. controlled and kept in a way consistent with community expectations and rights of individuals.
  3. [19]
    A regulated dog is:[8]
    1. a declared dangerous dog; or
    2. a declared menacing dog.
  4. [20]
    A declared dangerous dog is a dog declared under s 94 of the Animal Management Act to be a dangerous dog.[9]
  5. [21]
    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.
  6. [22]
    A declaration made under this section is a regulated dog declaration.[12] The term “seriously attack” means:[13]
    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.
  7. [23]
    If a dog is a regulated dog, then an authorised person may immediately destroy the dog if:[14]
    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.
  8. [24]
    Where the dog is a “regulated dog” and s 127 of the Animal Management 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.
  9. [25]
    The Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (“Criminal Code”) defines bodily harm and grievous bodily harm as follows:
    1. Bodily harm means any bodily injury which interferes with health of comfort….
    2. Grievous bodily harm means—
      1. the loss of a distinct part or an organ of the body; or
      2. serious disfigurement; or
      3. any bodily injury of such a nature that, if left untreated, would endanger or be likely to endanger life, or cause or be likely to cause permanent injury to health; whether or not treatment is or could have been available.
  10. [26]
    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.[15]

The Applicant’s Grounds for Review

  1. [27]
    In his written application for review the applicant has not provided any clear grounds for review. The applicant did not attend the hearing. The respondent provided information to the tribunal that the applicant has previously asserted that there was no proof the dog was responsible for the attack, that the dog had previously lived incident free, and that because the victim was no longer in a relationship with the applicant the victim was no longer at risk of being attacked.

Consideration of the Tribunal

  1. [28]
    The Tribunal finds that the respondent had authority to propose to declare the dog as a dangerous dog under the Act.
  2. [29]
    The Tribunal finds from the evidence presented that the reason the dog was proposed to be declared dangerous was because it seriously attacked a person on multiple occasions, being on 9 August 2023, 4 October 2023 and 9 November 2023, satisfying the relevant criteria prescribed by section 89(2)(a) of the Act.
  3. [30]
    The respondent had authority to issue a concurrent Regulated Dog Declaration and Destruction Order in circumstances where it was considered appropriate to do so.
  4. [31]
    From the evidence supplied, it is certainly established the dog was responsible for the attacks on the dates mentioned above.
  5. [32]
    There was clear evidence provided by the victim of the attack on 4 October 2023. It is clear the injuries comprised of an eight-centimetre laceration to her right forearm which required medical intervention.
  6. [33]
    It is also accepted that the victim of the attacks on 9 August 2023 and 9 November 2023 are the same person which was the partner of the applicant. This victim received substantial injuries including a portion of her nose bitten off in one of the attacks. Her injuries required medical intervention including surgeries.
  7. [34]
    It is also accepted that the types of injuries sustained by the victim falls within the definition of bodily harm and/or grievous bodily harm as defined under the Criminal Code.
  8. [35]
    It is accepted that the dog seriously attacked a person on multiple occasions as the injuries sustained were serious in nature and required medical intervention on each occasion and satisfies the definition of “seriously attack” contained within section 89(6) of the Act.
  9. [36]
    The affidavits and oral evidence provided by the council compliance officers who are experienced in dog behaviours made it very clear that the dog poses a very real risk to the health and safety of the community.
  10. [37]
    In Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management[16] (Nguyen), the Tribunal said:[17]

[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:

a) The relevant history of the behaviour of the dog giving rise to the consideration of the making of a destruction order;

b) 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;

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

d) 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;

e) 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;

f) Compliance by the owner of the dog with any permit conditions imposed as a result of the dog being declared a regulated dog;

g) 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;

h) 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.

  1. [38]
    In Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No 2)[18] 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.

Decision

  1. [39]
    The original decision is correct at law and reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. The original decision is confirmed.

Order

  1. [40]
    The decision of the Cairns Regional Council made on 29 November 2023 in respect of a destruction order for the dog “Boof” is confirmed.

Footnotes

[1]Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (“QCAT Act”) s 17.

[2]The Animal Management Act s 188.

[3]Ibid s 187.

[4]QCAT Act s 18.

[5]Ibid s 20.

[6]The Animal Management Act s 3.

[7]Ibid s 59.

[8]Ibid s 60.

[9]Ibid s 61.

[10]Ibid s 89.

[11]Ibid s 89(2).

[12]Ibid s 89(5).

[13]Ibid s 89(6)

[14]Ibid s 127.

[15]Ibid s 127A.

[16][2017] QCATA 121.

[17][2017] QCATA 121, [31]–[33].

[18][2019] QCATA 167.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Carthew v Cairns Regional Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Carthew v Cairns Regional Council

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 318

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Pearce

  • Date:

    10 Aug 2025

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Cutbush v Scenic Rim Regional Council (No. 2) [2019] QCATA 167
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCATA 167
Cite 2 - [2019] QCATA 167
Nguyen v Gold Coast City Council Animal Management [2017] QCATA 121
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QCATA 121
Cite 2 - [2017] QCATA 121
Cite 3 - [2017] QCATA 121

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.