The destruction of the unregistered black and tan canine was ordered last month when her owner, Natasha Robins, appeared in the New Plymouth District Court on admitted charges of failing to register a dog and owning a dog that rushed.
Judge Gregory Hikaka made the discretionary decision to impose an order to destroy Indy, fined Robins $300 on the charges and ordered her to pay $300 in emotional harm reparation.
Indy is 9 years old. The general life expectancy of a rottweiler is about 10 years.
Justice Karen Grau heard the appeal and last week released her decision, in which she said Robins’ failure to comply with her obligations as a dog owner and the subsequent consequences were "very serious", Indy had behaved aggressively and was an ongoing threat to the community.
Cyclists rushed by barking dog
On October 24 last year, the victim was part of a group of eight cyclists heading along Otaraoa Rd towards Tikorangi in Taranaki.
The group were cycling in a four-by-two formation at about 25km/h.
As the group neared Robins’ house, Indy appeared in the driveway and began barking aggressively, before rushing from the property.
She ran at and into the cyclists, causing riders to crash.
The victim, who was in the second row and closest to the road, fell from his bike and landed on the handlebars of another bike. He was left in significant pain.
After the cyclists yelled at Indy to go away, she ran off and they phoned an ambulance and the New Plymouth District Council animal control.
While the group were waiting for an ambulance, Robins came out of her house and asked the cyclists which dog had caused the crash.
The victim suffered five fractured ribs and secondary injuries, including a collapsed lung and respiratory tract infection. He was admitted to the intensive care unit for treatment.
Meanwhile, animal control officers visited Robins’ home the next day but she was not there. On November 8, they returned and seized and impounded Indy.
Owner’s plea against destruction
At sentencing, the court heard Indy had a history of rushing from the property and getting among cyclists, causing concern and accidents.
While giving Indy a dangerous classification was an option, it would require Robins to adhere to a range of conditions.
But the district council did not consider her a responsible dog owner.
Defence lawyer Susan Hurley submitted Robins admitted she had previously been non-compliant, but she had been navigating personal issues at the time.
She submitted there were no incidents involving Indy in the past six years and Robins would not oppose her being recorded as a dangerous dog.
While several letters of support were given to the court detailing Robins’ affection for Indy and how the dog behaves around others, Judge Hikaka read aloud the council’s history of Robins not registering her dogs and the animals rushing at people.
On appeal, Robins submitted Judge Hikaka erred in his assessment of the seriousness of the offending, which she said was at the "low end of moderate".
She argued he also erred in his assessment of the ongoing dangerousness of Indy, and that he did not impose the least restrictive outcome.
"Ms Robins argues that instead of ordering destruction, a dangerous dog classification is available, which will ensure the dog’s behaviour is not repeated," the decision stated.
"Ms Robins can transfer ownership to a whānau member with a fully fenced property, who will ensure this well-loved elderly family pet can live out the rest of her life within the family, and with increased oversight to further mitigate any risks to the community."
But in response, the council stated the judge was correct to order destruction given the nature of the offending and its consequences, the ongoing dangerousness of Indy and Robins’ poor history as a dog owner.
"The council also points out that Ms Robins is now disqualified from dog ownership for four years, and the proposed new owner also has a history of poor compliance with ownership obligations."
In her decision, Justice Grau rejected Robins’ submission that the offending and its consequences were at the "low end of moderate" and ruled they were serious.
"The victim was otherwise healthy and active before the incident. He was not afterwards, for a significant time, and there have been ongoing effects."
Justice Grau found Indy had behaved aggressively and was an ongoing threat to the community, and that given Robins’ history of non-compliance, a classification as a dangerous dog was not a viable alternative to destruction.
She also ruled that transferring ownership to the suggested whānau member was not feasible.
In dismissing the appeal, Justice Grau found there was no error by Judge Hikaka in ordering the destruction of Indy.
By Tara Shaskey
