QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND 
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:	Cook v Central Highlands Regional Council [2020] QCAT 366	
PARTIES:	andrew cook	
	(applicant)	
	v	
	Central Highlands Regional Council	
	(respondent)	
APPLICATION NO/S:	GAR365-18	
MATTER TYPE:	General administrative review matters	
DELIVERED ON:	21 September 2020	
HEARING DATE:	13 July 2020	
HEARD AT:	Brisbane	
DECISION OF:	Member Howe	
ORDERS:	The dangerous dog declaration made in respect of the dog ‘Bear’ on 3 April 2019 is confirmed.	
CATCHWORDS:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS – QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – where a dog killed a cat - where the respondent Council made a declaration that the dog was a dangerous dog – where the owner sought review in the Tribunal – where the attack was witnessed by the owner of the attack – where the veterinary surgeon confirmed the injuries sustained were attributable to a dog attack – where the attack was a serious attack – where the legislation required a declaration that the dog was a dangerous dog
Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld), 
s 89, s 94	
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:	

Applicant:	
Self-represented	

Respondent:	
Self-represented by B Keyes 	

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]	Ms Sutton owned a Siamese cat. Her neighbour, Mr Cook, owned two dogs, one of them a cross breed Rhodesian Ridgeback/Labrador dog named Bear.
[2]	On 4 September 2018 Ms Sutton heard a commotion in her front yard. She saw Mr Cook’s two dogs in her front yard attacking her cat. She saw Bear holding her cat in its mouth and the other nipping at the cat.
[3]	Ms Sutton yelled at the dogs and Bear dropped the cat and both dogs ran back next door. There were holes under the dividing fence allowing the dogs to get out of the fenced yard.
[4]	Ms Sutton took her cat to a veterinary surgeon for treatment. It was treated for a wound on the left side of the abdomen, monitored then allowed to go home. It died that night.
[5]	Central Highlands Regional Council (‘the Council’) investigated and determined, given Bear had caused grievous bodily harm which resulted in death to an animal and caused fear to the animal’s owner, Ms Sutton, to make a dangerous dog declaration in respect of Bear.
[6]	Mr Cook sought internal review of that decision but the internal review decision confirmed it.
[7]	Mr Cook has applied to the Tribunal for external review of the decision to declare Bear a dangerous dog.
The legislation
[8]	By the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 (Qld) (‘the AM Act’): 
89 	Power to make declaration 
(1) Any local government may, by complying with the requirements of this part— 
(a) declare a particular dog to be a declared dangerous dog (a dangerous dog declaration); or 
(b) declare a particular dog to be a declared menacing dog (a menacing dog declaration); or 
(c) declare a particular dog to be a restricted dog (a restricted dog declaration). 
(2) A dangerous dog declaration may be made for a dog only if the dog— 
(a) has seriously attacked, or acted in a way that caused fear to, a person or another animal; or 
(b) 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. 
(3) A menacing dog declaration may be made for a dog only if a ground mentioned in subsection (2) exists for the dog, except that the attack was not serious.
…
(6) A declaration under this section is a regulated dog declaration. 
(7) In this section— seriously attack means to attack in a way causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death.

94 Making declaration 
(1) The local government must consider any written representations and evidence accompanying them within the period stated in the proposed declaration notice. 
(2) If, after complying with subsection (1), the local government is satisfied that the relevant ground under section 89 still exists, it must make the regulated dog declaration for the dog.
The evidence
[9]	Bear’s owner, Mr Cook, claims the incident with the cat was out of character for Bear.
[10]	Since the incident he has ensured the entire backyard where the dog is kept is secure.
[11]	Prior to the incident Mr Cook says Ms Sutton’s cat was frequently in his backyard or “hanging around the fence line”. He also thought it was highly likely that the cat had attacked Bear first.
[12]	He also challenged the use by the Council of the word “mauled” when referring to the injuries inflicted on the cat by Bear. He said the cat did not require stitches, but simply some pain relief, and it was able to return home after it was treated. He paid the veterinary fees concerned.
[13]	In a statement of evidence Mr Cook challenged whether it was in fact his dogs involved in the attack. He said there was no DNA taken from his dogs matching any DNA taken from the puncture wounds on the cat.
[14]	He said Ms Sutton’s cat was never safely contained and antagonised his dogs on a regular basis.
[15]	The fencing requirements associated with a dangerous dog declaration will impair his chances of obtaining rental properties in the future. The extra cost of annual registration for a dangerous dog will also be a burden.
[16]	Ms Rodgers, Mr Cook’s partner, claimed the cat in question roamed and was often in her front yard or walking along the fence line which would cause the dogs to be on edge.
[17]	Mr Cook’s mother also gave a statement of evidence in which she said she had seen a blue grey cat entering her son’s yard and teasing her son’s dogs. She had seen this on more than one occasion. She had also seen the cat sit on the fence and move its tail which excited the dogs and made them bark. She had seen the cat jump off the fence into the backyard and run across the yard, causing the dogs to chase after it. She had never seen either dog become aggressive with the cat, simply excited.
[18]	Another witness who had visited Mr Cook’s property said he had seen a greyish blue cat exiting the yard on a number of occasions.
[19]	Ms Sutton described her cat as creamy coloured with brown stripes. She said it was not blue grey in colour. 
[20]	I accept Ms Sutton saw Bear and its mate attack her cat. No one else who gave evidence to the Tribunal was there when the incident happened. Ms Sutton identified the dogs involved in the attack as the dogs from next door and identified in particular Bear as the dog she saw holding her cat in its mouth. The dogs resided at the property adjacent to her and she can be expected to have been able to correctly identify them. A few days before the attack she said she had seen the dogs outside their yard and saw them crawl back underneath the fence into their yard. She had tried to block the gap under the fence with rocks but the dogs had growled and snapped at her, poking their heads back out from under the fence as she did that.
[21]	On 4 September 2018 she had returned home and discovered the dogs outside their yard. She went inside her home but then heard a commotion in her front yard. She went out to find the dogs mauling her cat. She saw Bear holding the cat in its mouth and the other dog jumping in and nipping at the cat.
[22]	Ms Sutton waved her arms and yelled out and Bear dropped the cat. She said she was scared that they would attack her, but they ran out onto the road. She picked up her cat and took it inside and then took it to the veterinary surgeon.
[23]	The veterinary surgeon who treated the cat, Dr Goodwin, said that the wound and saliva found on the body of the cat were consistent with a tooth wound suffered from a dog attack. She said the cat later died from unknown causes but that was not uncommon with cats involved in dog attacks.
[24]	Potentially both dogs might have been accused of having caused serious injury to Ms Sutton’s cat. Ms Sutton identified Bear, however, as the dog holding the cat in its mouth and the Council acted on that identification only.  
[25]	I accept Ms Sutton’s evidence that it was Mr Cook’s dogs that attacked Ms Sutton’s cat. I accept she saw them fighting the cat in her front yard. In particular she saw Bear holding the cat in its mouth. I accept she took the cat to the veterinary surgeon for treatment after the attack but as a result of injuries sustained in the attack or simply the shock of the attack, the cat died. I accept the puncture wound to the cat’s abdomen was most likely caused by Bear biting the cat.
[26]	The fight with the cat occurred in Ms Sutton’s front yard. To get there the dogs had to crawl out from under the fence supposedly keeping them in their own property. There is no evidence to suggest that immediately prior to the attack the cat had teased or challenged or otherwise instigated the altercation with the dogs as suggested by Mr Cook.
[27]	It is unclear whether the cat observed by the other witnesses to be teasing the dogs from time to time prior to 4 September 2018 was Ms Sutton’s cat. The suggestion that the cat possibly started the fight lacks credibility and I reject it.
[28]	I conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Bear left his yard and attacked Ms Sutton’s cat in Ms Sutton’s front yard. As a result of that attack the cat died. The attack was a serious attack for the purpose of s 89(2) of the AM Act given it resulted in the death of the cat. The term “seriously attack” in s 89 is defined as an attack causing bodily harm, grievous bodily harm or death.
[29]	By s 94 if the relevant ground under s 89 is established a Council must make a regulated dog declaration. The appropriate declaration given the death of the cat was a declaration that Bear was a dangerous dog.
[30]	I understand that declaring Bear a dangerous dog makes renting difficult for Mr Cook and Ms Rodgers and brings a significant additional cost in the form of increased annual dog registration fees. However the evidence in the matter at hand is clear and the legislation requires a dangerous dog declaration to be made.