QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Neville v Logan Council Animal Management  [2023] QCAT 195	
PARTIES:	mark neville	

(applicant)	

	v	
	logan council animal management	

(respondent)	

APPLICATION NO:	GAR443-21	
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters	
DELIVERED ON:	1 June 2023	
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2023	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Member Olding	
ORDERS:	The decision under review is confirmed.	
CATCHWORDS:	ANIMALS – VARIOUS STATUTORY PROVISIONS – REGULATION OF COMPANION ANIMALS – OTHER MATTERS – whether grounds for dangerous dog declaration – where dog caused injury leading to death of cat – whether applicant’s dog was the dog that caused the injury
Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), s 89(7)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1
Brisbane City Council v Roy [2020] QCATA 147	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	

Applicant:	
S Neville	

Respondent:	
H Crosse, Case Officer	

REASONS FOR DECISION
What is this case about?
[1]	The applicant, Mr Neville, has a dog, Max. Max was involved in an incident in which a cat was attacked. The injuries from the attack lead to the death of the cat.
[2]	Logan Council Animal Management, believing Max caused the injuries, declared Max to be a “dangerous dog”.
[3]	Mr Neville has applied for review of that decision.
Legal framework
[4]	The grounds for making a dangerous dog declaration are specified in the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld). 
[5]	Under s 8(2)(a), a local authority has the power to make a dangerous dog declaration if a dog has “seriously attacked” another animal. “Seriously attack” means to attack in a way causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death: s 89-7. 
[6]	Bodily harm and grievous bodily harm are defined in the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 1. It is not necessary to set out those definitions. There can be no question that in this case the cat was seriously attacked.
[7]	The Appeal Tribunal has held that, once the Tribunal is satisfied a dog has seriously attacked another animal, the Tribunal must confirm a decision to make a dangerous dog declaration. The Tribunal has no power or discretion to make any other decision in those circumstances.
Background
[8]	Ms Sarah Neville was given leave to appear for Mr Neville at the hearing. At the relevant time, Max, and another dog, Spot, lived with Mr Neville and Ms Neville at their home. 
[9]	There is no dispute that Max and Spot were involved in the incident. Max and Spot had escaped from their home. The incident occurred at the home where the cat lived some distance away. 
[10]	After the incident, the cat was taken to a veterinarian who advised the injuries were such that the cat should be euthanised. The cat passed away before the owner reached the veterinary surgery.
[11]	Ms Neville gave evidence that Max was around 18 months old at the time of the incident, and that Max is not a dangerous dog and has not been involved in any aggression in the approximately three years since the incident occurred. 
[12]	No witness who could give direct evidence regarding whether it was Max that caused the injuries to the cat appeared at the hearing. However, the cat’s owner provided security video footage to the Council which was viewed at the hearing.
Mr Neville’s submissions
[13]	Ms Neville submitted on Mr Neville’s behalf that the Tribunal should not be satisfied it was Max who caused the injuries that lead to the cat’s death. 
[14]	Both Max and Spot were present at the incident. There were several reasons why Ms Neville said the Tribunal should decide it is more likely that Spot had caused the injuries.
[15]	First, Ms Neville said the video footage, which was in two parts, had a gap which meant it did not establish that it was Max, rather than Spot, who caused the injuries. I return to this further below.
[16]	Secondly, Ms Neville gave evidence that Spot was a dangerous dog. So dangerous that she could not control him and, around six weeks before the hearing, had taken the difficult decision to have him put down. 
[17]	Thirdly, and in contrast to Spot, Ms Neville said Max was not aggressive, as evidenced by the absence of any other aggression in the extended period since the incident, and further he was a puppy at the time.  Additionally, Max was provoked by the cat scratching him.
Did Max cause the injuries to the cat?
[18]	I have taken into account the absence of evidence of any further aggression by Max, Ms Neville’s evidence that Spot was an aggressive and dangerous dog, and that Max was relatively young at the time of the incident. However, even if that evidence is entirely accepted it is, in my view, insufficient to outweigh the probative nature of the video evidence.
[19]	The video evidence was in the form of two short recordings. 
[20]	In the first video, at first only Max is visible. He is barking aggressively at the cat. Spot then comes into view. However, Spot remains behind Max, so that Max is between Spot and the cat. At one point, the cat runs off and Max gives chase and catches up with the cat. An awful interaction occurs with the cat lashing out at Max and Max aggressively attacking the cat. Ms Neville says the cat scratched Max down his face. There is no other direct evidence of this but the nature of the interaction is such that I accept Max would have sustained one or more scratches.
[21]	In the second video, Spot first comes back into vision. Then Max is seen dragging the cat. The cat is on its back with Max’s mouth around its body. It is clear the cat is badly injured. Spot is hanging around a metre or two back but not participating in the attack in this footage.
[22]	In all of the footage that is in evidence, only Max is seen acting aggressively towards the cat. It is Max that has his mouth around the cat attacking it in the second video. In the circumstances, I am compelled to conclude that it is more likely Max than Spot who caused the injuries to the cat.
Conclusion
[23]	In view of my conclusion that Max caused the injuries to the cat, the Tribunal must confirm the decision to make the dangerous dog declaration. The Tribunal has no power to make any other decision.