Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council - [2025] QCAT 64

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

Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council[2025] QCAT 64

Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council[2025] QCAT 64

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council [2025] QCAT 64

PARTIES:

Colin LAWSON

(applicant)

v

TABLELANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

GAR301-22

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2025

HEARING DATE:

11 November 2024

HEARD AT:

Cairns

DECISION OF:

Member Taylor

ORDERS:

  1. The applicant’s Application for Review filed 27 July 2022 (also recorded in the Tribunal files as having been filed 3 August 2022) is to be read and determined as an application for review of the respondent’s internal review decision made on 18 August 2022.
  2. Upon confirmation having been given under oath by the applicant that the dog known as Trigger (aka Hunter) died in January 2024, it is declared that the decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 7 July 2022, affirmed on internal review on 18 August 2022, to declare ‘Trigger’ a dangerous dog is now of no utility and accordingly is set aside.
  3. The decision of the Tablelands Regional Council dated 18 August 2022 to declare ‘Nasha’ a dangerous dog is confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – animals – dangerous dogs – where Dangerous Dog declarations were made – where no challenge to the fact of the attack – where no challenge to it being a serious attack - where identity of dogs in question – where one of the dogs has subsequently died before the application for review had been decided

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act2009(Qld), s 17, s 18, s 19, s 20, s 21, s 24

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 60, s 61, s 89, s 90, s 94, s 125, s 180, s 181, s 183, s 186, s 187, s 188

Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147

Petersen v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43

Peterson & Anor v Rockhampton Regional Council [2023] QCATA 50

Reich & Anor v Toowoomba Regional Council [2023] QCAT 47

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

Self-represented

Respondent:

Mr L. Manning – Solicitor of P&E Law

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

  1. [1]
    Mr Lawson and Ms Hutchings are neighbours in a rural setting. They share a relatively long common boundary along which runs Ms Hutchings’ on which she often walks with her small dogs.
  2. [2]
    One afternoon in May 2022 Ms Hutchings was undertaking such a walk with her puppy named Samson. It was not to be a pleasant walk. Samson was seized by two large dogs and severely injured. Those injuries resulted in Samson dying that evening.
  3. [3]
    Mrs Hutchings recognised the two dogs as being those belonging to her neighbour Mr Lawson, such known as Trigger and Nasha. The following morning she raised a dog attack complaint to the Tablelands Regional Council. What ultimately followed was the Council declaring Trigger and Nasha as dangerous dogs.
  4. [4]
    Mr Lawson challenges that decision in this Tribunal. He argues that the Council’s investigation was substantially flawed and biased against him. He says that it was not his dogs that attacked Samson, and that Ms Hutchins must have been mistaken.
  5. [5]
    Since filing his application in this Tribunal seeking to have the Council’s decision declaring both Trigger and Nasha dangerous, sadly Trigger has died. Accordingly this proceeding continued in terms of the hearing before me and the decision that is ultimately sought to be in terms of Nasha only.
  6. [6]
    Mr Lawson fails in his efforts to have the declaration of Nasha as dangerous set-aside. Not only is this Tribunal not concerned with any flaw that might have occurred in the investigation, nor any bias against him, such being because it is one conducted on the merits, the evidence against his argument that it was not his dogs is overwhelming. In all respects I am satisfied that Ms Hutchings properly and correctly identified Nasha and Trigger as being the two dogs that attacked Samson, from which Samson then died. Mr Lawson also accepted during the hearing that Ms Hutchings knew his dogs on sight, yet he did not offer any probative evidence that she could have been mistaken. His only attempt at doing so was to suggest that there were other dogs in the area that looked like his dogs, but his evidence in that regard was entirely wanting of any meaningful weight.
  7. [7]
    On a review such as this one, this Tribunal is mandated to consider the matter effectively afresh and reach the correct and preferable decision. For the reasons I have given herein, that decision is that the declaration of Nasha as a dangerous dog should stand.

Relevant Fact and Circumstances

  1. [8]
    On 12 May 2022, a Ms Hutchings reported to the respondent (the TRC) that her puppy (Samson) was attacked by two large dogs, asserted to have come into her property from the neighbouring property (the Complaint). As the evidence was in this proceeding, that neighbouring property is where the applicant (Mr Lawson) lives and possesses two large dogs (Nasha (aka Gnasha) and Trigger (aka Hunter)). Sadly, that evening Samson died from his injuries sustained in that attack.
  2. [9]
    On 13 May 2022, responding to the Complaint, two Local Laws Officers of the TRC attended Mr Lawson’s property, then observing two dogs present which is said to have matched Ms Hutchings’ description of the two dogs which attacked Samson. As the evidence was in this proceeding, those two dogs were Nasha and Trigger. Acting under s 125 of the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (the Animal Act), the Officers then seized Nasha and Trigger.
  3. [10]
    On 10 June 2022, following an investigation in which the TRC determined that the evidence supported the Complaint, the TRC issued Mr Lawson with  a Proposed Regulated (Dangerous) Dog Declaration for each of Nasha and Trigger.
  4. [11]
    Mr Lawson responded, as he was entitled to do, to those proposed declarations. Having considered that response, the TRC maintained its conclusion on the Complaint.
  5. [12]
    On 7 July 2022 it issued to Mr Lawson a Regulated (Dangerous) Dog Declaration for each of Nasha and Trigger. On 13 July 2022, an Amended Declaration was issued in terms of Nasha. (the Declarations)
  6. [13]
    There is confusion in the material that was before me as to what followed, but from my reading of that material it is apparent that:
    1. On 27 July 2022, Mr Lawson filed an application with this Tribunal for a stay of the Declarations (the Stay Application); and
    2. Simultaneously, or subsequently on 3 August 2022, he filed an application with this Tribunal for external review of the Declarations (the External Review Application).[1]
  7. [14]
    What also subsequently occurred was the release by the TRC of the dogs back to Mr Lawson, but then follow up when it was reported that the dogs were not contained on Mr Lawson’s land as required. It is not necessary to lay out herein the details of those events. There was also correspondence between the parties wherein the TRC advised Mr Lawson that regardless of his application for relief in this Tribunal, it was a requirement under the Animal Act that he was to have first sought internal review by the TRC of the Declarations.
  8. [15]
    On 29 July 2022, presumably acting on that advice, Mr Lawson lodged with the TRC his application for internal review (Internal Review Application).
  9. [16]
    On 18 August 2022, the TRC issued to Mr Lawson its decision on the Internal Review Application. It was to confirm the Declarations. (the InternalDecision).
  10. [17]
    On 29 August 2022, this Tribunal ordered that the Declarations be stayed pending final determination of the External Review Application (the Stay).
  11. [18]
    A series of Directions for the future conduct of this proceeding then followed.
  12. [19]
    In January 2024, Trigger died, Mr Lawson informing the Tribunal of this via e-mail.
  13. [20]
    On 20 March 2024, the TRC, via its solicitor, wrote to this Tribunal in reference to that fact and e-mail stating the following:

Council has instructed us to continue with the appeal in relation to the dog Nasha (referred to by Mr Lawson as Gnasha).

In order to expedite the hearing in relation to the dog known as Trigger we ask whether it would be appropriate for Mr Lawson to give evidence under oath that Trigger has died and then the appeal will only proceed in relation to the dog Nasha.

  1. [21]
    It is against this background that this proceeding came before me for decision.

The Issues

  1. [22]
    It is not in dispute that Samson was attacked by two large dogs as reported by Ms Hutchings. Nor is it in dispute that Samson died as a result of that attack. The issue is whether the attacking dogs were Nasha and Trigger.
  2. [23]
    Thus the primary issue for determination in this proceeding is whether or Nasha and Trigger were correctly identified as the offending dogs. There is however a secondary issue as Mr Lawson raised it, such being his dogs are not dangerous. That however is to be determined relative to the decision on the primary issue.
  3. [24]
    But, there are two threshold issues that should be dealt with before these issues are discussed and determined. The first is the procedural issue in terms of Mr Lawson’s premature External Review Application, it having been made in advance of him having applied to the TRC for internal review, and it being in reference to the Declarations rather than what it should have been as an application for review of the Internal Decision.[2] The second is the fact of the subsequent death of Trigger.
  4. [25]
    Before moving to discussing the issues, to assist Mr Lawson, and any other reader of these reasons, in understanding why I reached the decision I did and made the relevant orders, in the next section herein I explain, in a general manner, the relevant law under which the issues were to be decided.

Relevant Law[3]

  1. [26]
    A regulated dog means a declared dangerous dog, a declared menacing dog or a restricted dog.[4] A dangerous dog includes a dog declared to be dangerous under s 94 of the Animal Act.[5]
  2. [27]
    A local government may declare a dog to be dangerous, menacing, or restricted.[6]
  3. [28]
    A dangerous dog declaration may be made if a dog:[7]
    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. 
  4. [29]
    Under the Act, ‘seriously attack’ means to attack in a way causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm, or death.[8]  
  5. [30]
    If a local government proposes to make a regulated dog declaration it must first give to the owner of the dog a proposed declaration notice.[9] The local government must consider any written representations and evidence submitted by the dog owner.[10] If the local government is satisfied that a ground for making the declaration still exists, it must make the regulated dog declaration.[11]
  6. [31]
    Such is a decision that is open for the dog owner to apply to the local government to have internally reviewed, such which must occur before an application to this Tribunal for external review is made.[12] Upon completion of the internal review process, an internal review decision is given, such known as a ‘review notice’.[13]
  7. [32]
    If the review notice confirms the original decision, for the purpose of an application for external review the original decision is taken to be the internal review decision. If the review notice amends the original decision, for the purpose of an application for external review the original decision as amended is taken to be the internal review decision. It is that internal review decision, communicated to the dog owner by way of the review notice, that then becomes the decision for which the dog owner may seek external review in this Tribunal.[14]
  8. [33]
    The dog owner may then apply to this Tribunal for review of that internal review decision.[15] That is, it is not the decisions to issue the dangerous dog declarations that are open to be reviewed in this Tribunal, such having been the subject of the general review applications made by the applicants to the respondent under s 183 of the Animal Act.
  9. [34]
    The purpose of the external review, arising under s 188 of the Animal Act in conjunction with s 17 to s 20 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (the QCAT Act), is to produce the correct and preferable decision. It is conducted by way of a fresh hearing on the merits.[16] In effect, as the Member constituting this Tribunal for the purposes of the review, I stand in the shoes of the decision maker of either the original decision or the internal review decision, dependant on whether s 186(4) or s 186(5) of the Animal Act applies
  10. [35]
    I am not concerned with the process by which the internal review decision was reached and whether any error was made in any of the steps taken by the decision-maker. Accordingly, the role of the TRC is not to advocate for the correctness of the internal review decision, but rather to assist me in my task of being required to make the correct and preferable decision.[17] In doing so the TRC primarily refers to the material that was before its decision-maker during the process that led to this hearing, and to have its witnesses (if any) confirm their previously filed written statements and make them available for cross-examination, but it may also present other evidence during the hearing by way of other witnesses.[18]  
  11. [36]
    Following consideration of the relevant material, I may confirm or amend the internal review decision, set aside the decision and substitute my own decision, or set aside the decisions and return the matter for reconsideration by the decision-maker.[19]

The Threshold Issues

  1. [37]
    Before turning to the relevant evidence and submissions in terms of the decision was being asked to make in this proceeding, it seemed to me appropriate to firstly dispose of the two threshold issues which I noted earlier herein.
  2. [38]
    Firstly, there is the issue of Mr Lawson making his External Review Application before he had made his Internal Review Application, and as such his application to this Tribunal seeking review of the Declarations rather than the Internal Decision.
  3. [39]
    On a strict reading and application of s 180 of the Animal Act, such would mean this Tribunal’s jurisdiction to consider his External Review Application had not been enlivened and accordingly the proper order would be to dismiss the application. Such is as I discussed it in Reich & Anor v Toowoomba Regional Council (Reich).[20]
  4. [40]
    When I raised this at the start of the hearing, the TRC’s legal representative, Mr Manning, explained to me that the TRC was taking a pragmatic approach in this proceeding, it prepared to have the External Review Application determined as if it was an application to review the Internal Decision.[21] As I understood the TRC’s position, it was because what did occur was that Mr Lawson made the Internal Review Application, and the Internal Decision was made such confirming the Declaration. Thus, if Mr Lawson were to have in turn proceeded to external review after internal review, he would in effect be seeking a review of the same decision.[22] In doing so he proposed an order to give effect to that.[23]
  5. [41]
    As I noted it in Reich, the inclusion of a review process preserves the principles of natural justice and allows for questions of fact to be resolved without instituting legal proceedings. This provision also provides an opportunity for local governments to have far greater control over and awareness of how their officers are enforcing the various provisions of the Animal Act.[24]
  6. [42]
    That being said, because the Internal Review Application had been made and acted upon, the TRC had the opportunity to have control over and become aware of how its officers were enforcing the provisions of the Animal Act. This is important in this proceeding. As I discuss it in some detail later herein, the manner in which Mr Lawson pressed his case before me was to have complained about the investigation performed by the TRC’s officers and in turn the procedure that led to the Declarations. He says it was flawed. But as I have already mentioned it herein, such is not something which is the subject of external review. Once again returning to what I said in Reich, such an argument being raised before me in that matter, complaints about the process was precisely part of the purpose for which s 180 of the Animal Act exists requiring the internal review at first instance.[25]  
  7. [43]
    For these reasons, and further to avoid wasting the already overstretched resources of this Tribunal which would occur with a dismissal or at the very least an adjournment for the procedural issues to be corrected by way of formalising the External Review Application, I accepted the approach pressed upon me by Mr Manning as being an appropriate one and that it should be adopted. An order was made to that effect consistent with what Mr Manning proposed.
  8. [44]
    The second issue was the manner in which the External Review Application should proceed in terms of Trigger, given Mr Lawson informing this Tribunal of his passing since the application was made. Once again Mr Manning had dealt with that in the TRC’s material filed, submitting that the TRC would not continue to press for a dangerous dog declaration relative to Trigger if Mr Lawson confirmed under oath the death of his dog. Mr Manner also proposed a draft of an order to deal with it.[26]
  9. [45]
    Consistent with that, at the start of his cross-examination Mr Lawson confirmed, under oath, that Trigger had died. Accordingly I accepted the proposed order as being appropriate. The relevant order was made. As a result the hearing continued in terms of the Internal Decision relative to Nasha only.

Evidence and Submissions

TRC’s Material

  1. [46]
    In its capacity as the decision-making body assisting this Tribunal, the TRC’s material was extensive, namely:
    1. A substantial document entitled ‘Respondent’s Written Submissions’ dated 2 September 2022 in which twenty-five documents were annexed starting with the Complaint and ending with the Internal Decision. In the hearing this was marked as Exhibit 1;
    2. Further Submissions dated 11 November 2024. In the hearing this was marked as Exhibit 2; and
    3. A video/audio recording of an interview by TRC’s officers of Ms Hutchings about the attack on Samson. This was viewed during the hearing and marked as Exhibit 5.
  2. [47]
    In my opinion it is not necessary for me to detail herein that extensive material. I refer only to the parts of it I considered probative in terms of the primary issue as I identified it in paragraph [22] herein.
  3. [48]
    When submitting her Complaint, which I infer was submitted via an on-line portal at 8:44 am the morning after the attack occurred, Ms Hutchings described the circumstances in this manner:[27]

My puppy was attacked on my driveway by neighbours (sic) dogs that came through the fence (sic) So badly injured he died of injuries sustained in the attack These dogs have been menacing me walking on my driveway every day and have attacked me so that I always carry a stout stick This has been going on for over a year and I have reported this before.

  1. [49]
    In a subsequent ‘Statement Form – Dog Attack Allegation Complaint’ shown as having been given by Mr Hutchings on 13 May 2022, the following details were included:[28]
    1. The location of the attack was on the driveway of her property (address given);
    2. The offending dogs were identified as two dogs owned by Mr Lawson;[29]
    3. The date of the attack was given as 11 May 2022 at 4:30 pm;
    4. The description of injuries to Samson was given as:

Bitten neck and back could not stand dog in shock.

  1. There was only one witness named therein, it being Ms Hutchings herself;
  2. The ‘Statement of the Incident’ was given as follows:

I was walking with my puppy along my drive when 2 neighbours dogs came through fenceline (sic) and grabbed my dog by the neck and second dog clamped back. When he started to scream I turned and ran back.

The dogs took off back onto their property.

As I followed one dog let go and then the other dog dropped my little dog.

The two ran off and I picked up my little dog who was badly mauled and already in shock.

I took him back to the house to ring the vet and took him in as quickly as possible.

The vet gave him pain relief and x rayed him for damage. As he was still in shock the prognosis was poor. The vet showed me the x rays and he had a crushed lower spine and spinal chord (sic) injury. He died that evening.

…

  1. [50]
    Contained within TRC’s material was a copy of a record provided by the Tableland Veterinary Service for Samson relating to the attendance by Ms Hutchings with Samson on 11 May 2022. It records the following:[30]
    1. Observations on examination:

Unable to support weight on hind legs. Right leg cold and unresponsive to nerve testing. …

Enormous swelling on left abdominal wall and onto dorsum where chewed up, concern for hemiation. Multiple open wounds, draining. Severe emphysema on palpitation, fatty tissue is draining out in chunks, severe subcutaneous and muscular damage. Bleeding quite freely from wounds.

…

  1. Conclusion:

Samson is unable to have spinal board placed due to the immense soft tissue trauma. Moving him is also not recommended. Discussed overnight referral to Cairns now he is stabilised but moving him is not advised.

Vertebral fracture with questionably nerve function in hindlegs has a poor prognosis. He currently is very shocky (sic) and is on drugs affecting out assessment. Initial checks suggested no function of right hind but left hind showing some nerve responses. Debated euthanasia. Owner has elected to keep on MLK overnight and reassess if he makes to through the night.

Thursday am

Samson has died overnight

  1. [51]
    As I noted it earlier, the TRC also presented the video recording of an interview with Ms Hutchings which I understood to have occurred at the Council’s Chambers in Atherton on 7 June 2022. Its duration was 44 min and 29 sec. The entirety of the recording was viewed during the hearing. Without going into the detail of what was said throughout the recording, I observed the following aspects of what Ms Hutchings said, such which I considered probative, namely:
    1. She described the dogs she saw attacking Samson in detail, one of which was female;
    2. She stated she had ‘talked to Jane about them – sometimes Jane called them back’ which I understood to be a reference to Jane Lawson, Mr Lawson’s wife;
    3. She explained she can readily see the Lawson’s house from her property and that often she sees the two dogs sitting outside the house;
    4. She stated that after the attack on Samson she saw the two dogs run back to the house.
  2. [52]
    The TRC did not present any witnesses in the hearing.

Mr Lawson’s case

  1. [53]
    Mr Lawson opened his case simply as being his dogs did not attack Samson.
  2. [54]
    When I then asked him what documentary material he was relying on in the hearing to support his case, he said it was everything he had put in to the TRC. He could however not identify it with any specificity. As such, I stood down the hearing for a short while so as Mr Lawson, with the assistance as offered by Mr Manning, to extract from the documentation the TRC held that which he wished to specifically rely on in the hearing. A bundle was then created and on return to the hearing and Mr Lawson being placed under oath as a witness, that bundle became Exhibit 3.
  3. [55]
    There was one other bundle of documents I identified for Mr Lawson that was contained in the Tribunal file which I asked whether he may also be relying on it, that being the document entitled ‘Documents to be relied upon’ which appeared to me to have been filed by him 15 May 2023 in satisfaction of Direction 2 of this Tribunal’s directions given 21 September 2022. Therein it describes the documents to be relied on as including “All Previous (sic) material submitted to QCAT in relation to case #GAR 301-22”, “Images Submission 14/05/23”, and “TRC Complaint 18th Feb 2023”. Upon me showing him this bundle he confirmed he wished to rely on it as well.
  4. [56]
    On the file I located the following ‘previous material’ to which Mr Lawson referred therein, namely what appeared to be a ‘submission’ from Mr Lawson, although styled as a letter addressed to QCAT with the salutation ‘Dear Senior Member Augherston’, dated 15 August 2022 to which there were a number of attachments, those attachments also appearing in his bundle filed 15 May 2023. There was also a document entitled ‘Applicants (sic) Response to Respondents (sic) written Submissions (sic)’ stamped as having been received 6 October 2022 to which was attached a photo said to show “another domestic dog in the area matching the description of my dog Trigger”, the same image (albeit blown up and cropped down) appearing in the bundle filed 15 March 2023.
  5. [57]
    All of this material was bundled together for the purposes of the hearing, confirmed by Mr Lawson under oath, and marked Exhibit 4.
  6. [58]
    Both Exhibits 3 and 4 became Mr Lawson’s evidence in chief. He also sought to lead additional evidence during the hearing, being photographs taken of other animals in the area which he says matched the description of his dogs, and a text message said to be from Ms Hutchings to his wife Jane Lawson. I did not allow that evidence because not only did it post-date the attack of Samson but I considered it to be irrelevant to the issues for determination in this proceeding.
  7. [59]
    There are two documents, one each contained in Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4, which are very similar in content, the majority of which is identical. For the sake of given these documents a reference within these reasons, I refer to it as Mr Lawson’s Outline of Argument. Save only for short preamble, they each effectively start with the following statement, which is followed by fifteen numbered paragraphs all of which are, save only for a few slight differences, essentially identical in each version:[31]

Please be advised that the proposed Regulated dog (sic) Declaration should not be made for the following reasons -

  1. [60]
    It seems to me that the differences in the content of the documents can be explained as different versions of the same document updated with the passage of time during the course of Mr Lawson’s dealings firstly with the TRC and then with this Tribunal. This is in part indicated by the following:
    1. The first version, undated, starts with the preamble:

I would like to formally request an internal review of the proposed declaration by TRC, carried out by a new, impartial council officer.

  1. The second version, dated 26 July 2022, it also forming part of that filed as the External Review Application, starts with the preamble:

I would like to formally request a review of the proposed declaration by the TRC

  1. [61]
    As I have read and understood this documentary material that Mr Lawson relied on as his evidence before me, the case he was pressing before me can be identified from the following passages extracted from the paragraphs in his Outline of Argument:[32]
  1. The dogs in question are not dangerous. Please see attached “statements” confirming the non-dangerous temperament from 6 people who have interacted with the animals in question, including multiple neighbours who live on (sic – the) road in question.
  2. There has been a long-standing dispute around the common fence line between the complainant, her partner and myself, there was a formal complaint made to TRC about the matter by me, to my knowledge this complaint/information was not investigated by the authorised officer.
  3. Seizure notice #AM009 and #AM010 states “Description of breach – Dog has been out wandering at large attached another animal resulting in death”. This description clearly proves that the authorised person has already made up their mind at point of seizure prior to any investigation that my dogs had carried out the alleged attack, from that point the authorised person was only looking for evidence to support her opinion.

…

  1. As stated in point #2, I made a complaint to Council about the complainant's partner in relation to his aggression towards my dogs … To my knowledge this was not investigated by the authorised person. The authorised person however did mention a previous complaint made against my animals. This is clear evidence that the officer did not carry out a fair and unbiased investigation.
  2. On three separate occasions TRC staff including Shellina McKellar, supervisor Local Laws, advised of staff shortage and high workload in the department. This has clearly and directly effected the timeframe of which the investigation was carried out and furthermore brings into question the objective impartiality of the overall investigation. …
  3. …

I have multiple statements stating that both animals have been provoked and attacked by the complainant and her partner. … It is my understanding that this was not considered in the initial investigation and is imperative information to the entirety of the evidence and therefore the investigation was not carried out to the extent required for an unbiased, impartial inquiry.

…

  1. I believe there is evidence proving that my privacy has been infringed and my case further biased against my animals. …
  2. There is a history of wild dogs in our area. To my knowledge, at no stage did the authorised officer confirm with the complainant that the seized animals were in fact the animals that she claims to have carried out the attack. It is not unreasonable to consider that a dog other than mine carried out the alleged attack. …
  3. …
  1. [62]
    Mr Lawson expressed similar views in his written response to the TRC’s written submissions, it being stamped as having been received by the Tribunal on 6 October 2022 and contained in Exhibit 4. Therein he stated:[33]

The Authorised (sic) person did not carry out an objective investigation, she took the complainants (sic) statement and detailed my animals. For 14 days there were no further investigation into the matter while my dogs were in custody. Only the complainant’s boyfriend was interviewed at a later date. Other neighbours were not interviewed, this is also proof of a skewed, bias (sic) investigation.

…

It is in a dog’s nature to chase a cat or a rabbit, the victim animal did look in appearance very similar to a black rabbit which are common in the area. It is possible that wild dogs mistook the complainants’ (sic) dog for a rabbit and attacked it. This was not investigated or ruled out by the authorised person. Once again proving the Authorised (sic) person made up their mind after received the complaint then stacking evidence to support her decision.

  1. [63]
    Mr Manning cross-examined Mr Lawson at length. In the course of that cross-examination Mr Lawson agreed to the following points:
    1. The identification of his property and Ms Hutchings’ property as shown in Ex 1 pg 72 correctly reflects the position of the two properties relative to each other;
    2. Whilst Mr Lawson was at home on 11 May 2022, he was not present when the attack occurred – he did not see or hear anything;
    3. Mr Lawson does not have any evidence which is contrary to Ms Hutchings’ statement as to what occurred.
  2. [64]
    What then followed was this short exchange between Mr Manning and Mr Lawson, namely:[34]

Mr ManningYou are saying it was not your dogs.

Mr LawsonMs Hutchings could be mistaken as to whether it was my dogs.

Mr ManningMs Hutchings knows your dogs.

Mr LawsonYes.

  1. [65]
    Mr Manning then referred Mr Lawson to the description of the dogs given by Ms Hutchings in her statement to the TRC  as it appears in Ex 1, that being as I referred to in paragraph [49] herein, saying to Mr Lawson that Ms Hutchings has described your dogs. I then asked Mr Lawson:
    1. as to whether he considered this to be a relatively accurate description of his dogs, to which he said ‘Yes’; and
    2. whether he has any evidence of other dogs in the area matching that description, to which he responded ‘No, other than photos’.
  2. [66]
    The Q&A between Mr Manning and Mr Lawson then continued with the following short exchange:

Mr ManningHow do you satisfy the Tribunal they were not your dogs.

Mr LawsonShe might have been mistaken.

Mr ManningThere is no dispute Samson died of a serious attack.

Mr LawsonYes.

Mr ManningThe dispute is whether your dogs attacked Samson.

Mr LawsonYes.

  1. [67]
    After the lunch break the cross-examination of Mr Lawson continued with the video recorded interview of Mr Hutchings being viewed by Mr Lawson and me, it then being tendered by the TRC without objection by Mr Lawson and received as Exhibit 5. After it was viewed in its entirety, Mr Manning posed some more questions to Mr Lawson. I considered part of that question and answer engagement to be probative, namely:

Mr ManningThe video shown Ms Hutchings has great familiarity with your dogs.

Mr LawsonYes.

Mr ManningMs Hutchings has had a history with your dogs over two years.

Mr LawsonYes.

Mr ManningMs Hutchings has witnessed the relationship between your two dogs grow.

Mr LawsonYes.

Mr ManningMs Hutchings has been fair and balanced in her responses.

Mr LawsonI don’t know about that. Probably alot to do with the way her and Brian have treated the dogs.

Mr ManningMs Hutchings carries a stick to protect herself. She has not come on to your property.

Mr LawsonI have not seen it. She might have leaned over the fence to hit them. She would need to use a stick on her property.

Mr ManningYou say Ms Hutchings has provoked the dogs, but she has protected herself.

Mr LawsonYes.

Mr ManningIt is highly unlikely that Ms Hutchings has made a mistake.

Mr LawsonNo. She says dogs were not barking; therefore it could not have been my dogs.

Mr ManningMs Hutchings gave evidence about witnessing Nasha when her pups were attacking a pig.

Mr LawsonYes – agreed – it was one of our domestic pigs.

  1. [68]
    The presentation by Mr Lawson of his case then turned to him cross-examining Ms McKellar, she being the TRC’s Co-ordinator of Local Laws, she being required by him for cross-examination. Ms McKellar is the TRC person referred to by Mr Lawson at paragraph 7 of the extract I have given at paragraph [61] herein.
  2. [69]
    Much of that relatively short cross-examination appeared to be directed towards Mr Lawson’s complaint about the investigation process. There was only one part of it I considered to be probative, namely:
    1. When Mr Lawson asked her whether she was aware of other dogs in the area, her answer was “not at the time of the incident or around that time”;
    2. Mr Lawson referred her to the photo of a dog in Ex 4, it being the photo I referred to in paragraph [56] herein, with Mr Lawson saying to Ms McKellar that it showed a dog similar to Trigger; to which Ms McKellar responded “I do not agree”’.
  3. [70]
    Mr Lawson did not call any other witnesses. I asked him why not. His answer was that he did not know he could. The reason I asked this is because of the presence of statement of six persons contained in the material he had provided. Whilst he did not expressly seek to rely on these statements, I inferred from his submission that he relies on everything put before the TRC and this Tribunal he was expecting me to consider them and what is stated therein.

Closing Submissions

  1. [71]
    The closing submissions were given orally after the close of evidence.
  2. [72]
    Mr Manning’s closing presentation was relatively extensive. I need not discuss herein the entirety of it, the following relevant points only being the critical parts of it:[35]
    1. Under the Animal Act, a serious attack includes an attack that causes death. Samson died from the attack. Thus it was a serious attack. If I find that Nasha was one of the dogs that attacked Samson, then I must find that Nasha is a dangerous dog;
    2. There is also evidence that Nasha caused fear to Ms Hutchings. This also enlivens the discretion to declare Nasha a dangerous dog;
    3. The video evidence of the interview of Ms Hutchings is telling – it showed the knowledge of the two dogs she possesses, and thus her being able to identify them;
    4. I can be satisfied that Ms Hutchings’ description and identification of the dogs was correct;
    5. To the extent Mr Lawson had raised an argument of provocation, it may be accepted that Ms Hutchings had previously hit one or both of Mr Lawson’s dogs with the stick she carries when walking, but such was to defend herself; and that whilst there are some levels of animosity in the background there cannot be any finding on the evidence of provocation; and
    6. There should be a finding that Nasha has caused fear to Ms Hutchings, and also that Nasha caused the death of Samson via the attack
  3. [73]
    Mr Lawson’s closing was in contrast very short. He argued that much has been placed on the evidence given by Ms Hutchings and that there were no other witnesses presented. As I understood that submission it was to say I should give her evidence little weight. He then commented on some aspects of what Ms Hutchings had said in the video recorded interview by which, as I understood what he was saying, he sought to diminish the probative value of that evidence as it showed some inconsistencies with facts as he knew them to be, however he did not point to the evidence that was before me of such facts.
  4. [74]
    When I asked him in conclusion as to why I should accept his argument, his response was that the dogs were not aggressive when seized, they only became aggressive when along the boundary line with Ms Hutchings’ property due to historical interactions with her, and that Nasha is now a different dog as a result of her being on her own and locked up, and that there is no evidence of her ever biting a person.

Discussion on the Issues

  1. [75]
    In my opinion the issues can be resolved with minimal discussion.
  2. [76]
    Firstly, I discuss the nature of Mr Lawson’s case as presented in his material to assert that the TRC’s investigation of the Complaint was flawed. This is the essence of the passages I extracted herein from his documents filed, in particular those parts which I emphasised in bold. As I understand his case, it is for this reason that the decisions should not stand.
  3. [77]
    As I explained to Mr Lawson at the start of the hearing, I am not concerned with the process by which the decisions were reached and whether any error was made in any of the steps taken by the decision-maker. Such is as I mention it in paragraph [35] herein. Whilst I thought he understood that upon our first discussion, as the hearing unfolded it became evident to me that he did not. His nature and content of his cross-examination of Ms McKellar indicated that to be so.
  4. [78]
    A similar issue arose before me in Petersen v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council  (Peterson) wherein I explained to the applicants’ lay advocate, at great length, that the Tribunal was not concerned with errors in the process that led to the decision under review.[36] Seemingly still not accepting that point, the applicants appealed my decision inter-alia on the ground that:[37]

The Tribunal failed to consider the prejudice caused to the applicants by failures in the respondent’s decision-making processes; including a denial of natural justice and the factual inaccuracies relied upon in the decision to issue the dangerous dog declaration.

  1. [79]
    In addressing that asserted error, the Appeal Tribunal noted again that which I informed the parties of at first instance in that proceeding, and I also informed Mr Lawson of at the start of the hearing in this proceeding, such being as I noted it in paragraph [34] herein, the review by this Tribunal is a fresh hearing on the merits such as is provided for under s 20(2) of the QCAT Act. Having extracted in the Appeal Tribunal’s reasons the passage from my reasons in Peterson to which I referred in paragraph [78] herein, the learned Senior Member rejected the ground of appeal on the basis of this conclusion:[38]

The applicants were given an opportunity to present all material to the Tribunal relevant to the question of whether there should be a dangerous dog declaration and there was ample opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses. There was no denial of procedural fairness before the Tribunal

  1. [80]
    The same applies here. Mr Lawson was given every opportunity to present all his material to this Tribunal on the question of whether his dogs should be the subject of a dangerous dog declaration. In doing so, to the extent any error might have been made by the TRC’s decision-maker that error effectively became meaningless because Mr Lawson essentially was being given a second chance to present his case. There is simply no reason for me to consider his arguments about the process. I did not do so. It did not factor into my decision making process, nor in any way impact on the decision I reached.
  2. [81]
    Secondly, I deal with that raised in the TRC’s material and Mr Manning’s closing submissions as to the dogs having caused fear to Ms Hutchings and thus a basis upon which I should confirm the decision to declare Nasha a dangerous dog.
  3. [82]
    I have not noted any of the evidence on that issue in these reasons because I did not consider it to be an issue on which my decision would turn in any way. Whilst it was raised in the material, I did not consider the evidence to be sufficiently probative such that a positive finding in that regard could be made. The outcome of this proceeding could be readily and succinctly resolved on the evidence of the attack on and the death of Samson.
  4. [83]
    Thirdly, I discuss the argument Mr Lawson raised that his dogs were not dangerous, seemingly sought to be supported by the ‘statements’ given by six persons and contained within his documents filed in this proceeding.
  5. [84]
    The persons giving those statements were not presented as witnesses in the hearing to affirm the truth and accuracy of what is stated therein, nor for it to be tested under cross-examination. Mr Lawson’s reason for not having called any as a witness was because he did not know he could. It is unfortunate that in the conduct of this proceeding a direction was not given, as is often given by this Tribunal, that all persons giving statements which are to be relied on by a party in a hearing are presented at the hearing as a witness and be made available for cross-examination unless otherwise not required by the opposing party. Had that been given it may have been clearer for Mr Lawson and as such he may have presented them.
  6. [85]
    However, even in the absence of such, the statements do not carry any weight. They say nothing more that the persons observations of the temperament of Mr Lawson’s dogs as observed by those persons at various times. The statements are not in any way evidence, either actual or from which an inference may be drawn, that Mr Lawson’s dogs did not attack Samson.
  7. [86]
    Fourthly, and finally, I turn to the evidence of Ms Hutchings, the only person to have witnessed the attack on Samson.
  8. [87]
    Whilst much of what Ms Hutchings had to say about the attack was contained in written material within Exhibit 1, and to which I have referred earlier herein to the extent I saw it to be directly relevant, it was what she had to say, and more importantly her demeanour as it was said, in the video recording which became Exhibit 5. Having watched the entirety of that video, listening closely to what she had to say and more importantly how she said it in answering the questions posed of her, immediately upon the conclusion of this video being played in full I wrote this in my notes of the hearing:

Having observed the interview with Ms Hutchings I am in no doubt she recognised the Lawson’s dogs as being the dogs which attacked Samson.

  1. [88]
    It must also be said that Mr Lawson seemingly accepted, as was demonstrated by the answers he gave during the cross-examination of him which I referred to in paragraphs [64] to [67] herein, that Ms Hutchings knew his dogs by sight. Thus I infer that he must accept that when Ms Hutchings said she saw his dogs attacking Samson, she was correct. Yet, his only response was that she must have been mistaken.
  2. [89]
    There was no challenge by Mr Lawson to the fact that Samson was attacked by two dogs and that he died as a result of that attack. That being said, the issue of the dogs identity remained the only obstacle for him to overcome if he was to succeed in having the TRC’s decision to declare Nasha a dangerous dog set aside.
  3. [90]
    As I understood his evidence, his attempts to show that there were other dogs in the area that looked like his dogs, or at the very least looked like Trigger, was a means to show how Ms Hutchings might have been mistaken. But his evidence in that regard was wanting. It was in effect nothing more than a bare assertion sought to be supported with references to some photographs of other dogs as they appeared in Exhibit 4 but without any proper identification of where, when, and by whom the photo was taken. In that regard his attempt to have Ms McKellar accept the fact that at least one photo he presented showed a dog that looked like Trigger was unsuccessful, with Ms McKellar firmly disagreeing that the photo showed a similar looking dog.
  4. [91]
    In my opinion, Ms Hutchings’ evidence was crucial in the determination of the challenge Mr Lawson was pressing against the TRC’s decision to declare his dogs dangerous. It seems to me he should have recognised this when he embarked on his efforts to have that decision set-aside. Yet, he did not seek to cross-examine her, even though he was squarely on notice of what was contained in the TRC’s material in terms of Ms Hutchings’ statements and the fact that she was the only witness to the attack. If he wished to challenge her statements in terms of what she had to say about what she saw, he could have and should have cross-examined her. Direction 5 of this Tribunal’s directions of 28 October 2022 in this proceeding provided him the means to notify the TRC that he required her to be presented in the hearing for that purpose. He did so in terms of Ms McKellar and accordingly I infer he made the conscious decision not to call for Ms Hutchings to be presented for that purpose.
  5. [92]
    I do not accept Mr Lawson’s suggestion that Ms Hutchings was mistaken. I find she was not and that she did identify Nasha and Trigger as the dogs which attacked Samson.
  6. [93]
    Accordingly, for the purposes of this proceeding I find that Nasha attacked Samson causing his death. It must thus follow that Nasha is declared a dangerous dog. For that reason there was no need for me to consider nor discuss further herein Mr Lawson’s argument that Nasha was not dangerous.

Concluding Remarks

  1. [94]
    Mr Lawson’s attempts to have the TRC’s decision, to declare Nasha as a dangerous dog, set aside is an admirable one and entirely understandable. I am in no doubt that he cares for his dog. Moreover I am in no doubt that, as he endeavoured to explain to me during the presentation of his closing submissions, that Nasha’s demeanour might have changed given the restrictions that such a declaration imposes on her freedom.
  2. [95]
    But that is not a premise upon which the declaration of a dangerous dog turns. It is the dog’s conduct that is in issue at a particular point in time, in this instance the time of the attack on Samson, such which must be considered within the confines of the Animal Act. Applying the provisions of that Act, in particular s 89(2)(a) therein, on the evidence that was before me in this proceeding the only finding and conclusion that can be reached is that the TRC’s decision of 18 August 2022, namely its decision on internal review, to declare Nasha as a dangerous dog was the correct one and so must be confirmed.
  3. [96]
    An order was made to that effect. Accordingly what then must also follow is that the Stay will also come to an end contemporaneously with the giving of the Decision document which formally ends this proceeding.

Footnotes

[1]  The copy of the Application in the file sent to me shows it as having been filed 27 July 2022, but in the Tribunal’s Directions issued as from 29 August 2022 references are made to an Application to review a decision filed on 3 August 2022. I infer that the latter references arise from the fact that the Tribunal file records an e-mail shown to have been sent from the Courthouse Atherton where the Application was originally lodged to ‘Enquiries QCAT’ on 27 July 2022 as having been received in the QCAT CAD Registry on 3 August 2022.

[2]  Such is as he was required to have done under s 180, and in turn s 188, of the Animal Act.

[3]  The following description of the statutory framework of the Animal Act is adopted in part from the reasoning of the Appeal Tribunal in Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147 [20] to [23] because of its succinctness and clarity. The footnote references are as contained therein at footnotes 25 to 34 but renumbered herein to reflect the sequence of footnotes in these reasons.

[4]Animal Act s 60.

[5]  Ibid s 61(a).

[6]  Ibid s 89(1).

[7]  Ibid s 89(2)

[8]  Ibid s 89(7).

[9]  Ibid s 90(1).

[10]  Ibid s 94(1).

[11]  Ibid s 94(2).

[12]  Ibid s 180, s 181(2), and s 183.

[13]  Ibid s 186, s 187.

[14]  Ibid s 186(4) and (5).

[15]  Ibid s 188.

[16]  QCAT Act s 20(2).

[17]  QCAT Act s 21.

[18]  QCAT Practice Direction No. 3 of 2013 – para 5(d).

[19]  QCAT Act s 24(1).

[20]Reich & Anor v Toowoomba Regional Council [2023] QCAT 47, [69] to [83].

[21]  See TRC’s ‘Further Submissions’ dated 11 November 2024, such which became Ex 2 in the hearing, in particular at para’s 11 to 29 therein wherein the communications between the parties which ensued was identified, such which I briefly referred to in paragraph [14] herein.

[22]  I pause here to observe that such is the effect of s 186(4) of the Animal Act.

[23]  Ex 2 para 12.

[24]Reich & Anor v Toowoomba Regional Council [2023] QCAT 47, [78].

[25]  Ibid, [80].

[26]  Ex 2 para’s 30 to 33.

[27]  Ex 1 Annexure pg 3.

[28]  Ex 1 – Annexure pg’s 27, 28, and 31.

[29]  Therein the owner was named as Colin and Jane Lawson.

[30]  Ex 1 – Annexure pg’s 119 and 120.

[31]  This same document appears as part of the ‘letter’ to QCAT dated 15 August 2022, once again essentially identical although with a few slight differences in the text of some of the paragraphs, and it containing 16 paragraphs.

[32]  The emphasis herein is mine. I understand the references therein to the ‘complainant’ to be to Ms Hutchings.

[33]  Again my emphasis.

[34]  This exchange is not extracted from a transcript and thus is not to be read as being verbatim. I have put it in these Reasons based on the notes I took during the hearing. This same note applies to all subsequent exchanges with Mr Lawson to which I refer in these reasons.

[35]  These points are as I have paraphrased the submissions made.

[36]Petersen v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43; [32] and [33].

[37]Peterson & Anor v Rockhampton Regional Council [2023] QCATA 50, [4].

[38]  Ibid;[20] and [21].

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Lawson v Tablelands Regional Council

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 64

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Taylor

  • Date:

    10 Feb 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
Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2020] QCATA 147
Cite 2 - [2020] QCATA 147
Petersen v Rockhampton Regional Council; Lister v Rockhampton Regional Council [2022] QCAT 43
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2022] QCAT 43
Cite 2 - [2022] QCAT 43
Peterson v Rockhampton Regional Council [2023] QCATA 50
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCATA 50
Cite 2 - [2023] QCATA 50
Reich v Toowoomba Regional Council [2023] QCAT 47
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2023] QCAT 47
Cite 2 - [2023] QCAT 47
Cite 3 - [2023] QCAT 47

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.