The Commission recommends:
1. That council officers be given power to issue on-the-spot infringement notices for offences under the Dog Act. (paras 4.31-4.36; 5.13)
2. That the definition of “public place” be clarified to ensure that private property to which the general public has ready access is included. (paras 4.22-4.26; 5.3, 5.5)
3. That the s6 offence of dogs attacking or injuring persons or animals continue. (para 4.37; 5.4)
4. That a new offence (s6A) be created which would impose criminal liability for serious injury which the owner or person responsible for control of the dog foresaw would occur but against which no reasonable precautions were taken. The crime could be committed on either public land or on the owner’s land. (para 4.20-4.21; 5.4)
5. That the current defences to criminal liability of intentional cruelty or provocation (s6(2)(b)) be available only where the provocation or cruelty are offered by the victim or someone closely associated with the victim. Further, that the defence of self-defence of person or property be made expressly applicable to the new s6A offence. (paras 4.20, 4.38; 5.4)
6. That a provision be inserted in the Dog Act which would allow a magistrate, upon complaint that a dog is dangerous and is not kept under proper control, to order the owner of the dog to keep it under control or ultimately to order that the dog be destroyed. (para 4.21; 5.14)
7. That there should be enacted a provision which imposes strict civil liability in respect of all harm caused by a dog while outside its owner’s property. (para 4.40; 5.10)
8. That the current defences to the action in strict civil liability continue. These are the defences that the attack was in immediate response to, and wholly induced by, either intentional cruelty or intentional provocation, but they should be confined to cruelty or provocation offered by the victim or someone associated with or acting on behalf of the victim (s20(2)(b)). Where the damage is due partly to the negligence of the plaintiff this will constitute contributory negligence (s20C). (paras 4.43-4.44; 5.11)
9. That the general law of negligence continue to apply to harm caused by dogs on the owner s land. (paras 4.14-4.16; 5.12)
10. That those seeking lawful entry to private land for statutory purposes whose previous attempts have been thwarted by fear of attack by a dog be able to apply to a magistrate for an order to assist their entry. (para 4.17-4.18; 5.14)
II. Injury and Damage Occurring on the Owner’s Property
The Commission recommends:
1. That the general law or any statutory scheme of occupier’s liability substituted for it apply to harm caused by dogs on the owner’s land. (paras 4.14-4.16; 5.12)
2. That those seeking lawful entry to private land for statutory purposes whose previous attempts have been thwarted because of actual or likely savage behaviour of a dog be able to apply to a magistrate for an order to assist their entry. (para 4.18-4.19; 5.14)
3. That a new offence be created which would impose criminal liability for serious injury which the owner or person responsible for control of the dog foresaw would occur but against which no reasonable precautions were taken. Such a crime would be committed where it could be shown that the dog was savage and the owner encouraged or directed it to attack or where the owner did not exercise effective control over it although aware of its capacity to attack and cause injury. The crime could be committed on either public land or on the owner’s land. (para 4.21; 5.4)
4. Further, that a provision be inserted in the Dog Act which would allow a magistrate, upon complaint that a dog is dangerous and is not kept under proper control, to order the owner of the dog to keep it under control or ultimately to order that the dog be destroyed. (para 4.22; 5.14)
