A 79-year-old man's severely injured elbow after he was attacked by a dog in a Tauranga reserve in November 2024. Photo / Tauranga City Council
“If I lose my dogs, I don’t know what I have got to live for.”
Those were the words of a woman fighting a five-year dog ownership ban after one of her dogs seriously injured a 79-year-old, leaving him with “permanent physical and psychological injuries”.
She is also fighting to keep her identity permanently suppressed.
The woman was walking three dogs in November last year when one, who was unleashed, lunged at the man and bit his elbow. Two of the dogs belonged to the woman and the third was owned by her sick friend.
She pleaded guilty on a charge of being the owner of a dog that seriously injured a person in the Tauranga District Court in July and was ordered to pay $1000 reparation to the victim. The dog was euthanised by court order.
Tauranga City Council issued a five-year ownership disqualification to the dog’s owner after the attack that is due to expire on November 12, 2029.
The council classified the woman’s second dog as menacing and it must be muzzled in public.
The tearful dog owner made an impassioned plea to four independent members of the Tauranga City Council’s regulatory hearings panel on Tuesday to have the ownership ban lifted.
Panel chairwoman Mary Dillon and independent members Puhiraka Ihaka, Terry Molloy and Alan Tate also heard evidence from council animal services team leader Oscar Glossop in support of the ban.
Glossop said the dog owner failed to control her dog and the victim suffered “life-changing“ permanent physical and psychological injuries as a result.
The victim’s large wound had required surgery at Tauranga Hospital and he could no longer undertake some household duties and property maintenance. He also felt unsafe to leave his home.
Glossop said the dog owner’s statement conflicted with the victim’s account and she continued to blame the victim for “acting in an alarming manner” and “yelling and waving his arms around”.
The dog owner provided positive references about her ability to manage dogs, Glossop said.
“Unfortunately, these attributed skills were not apparent on the day of the attack and she allowed her dog to attack the victim.”
The dog owner wept as she told the panel her dogs “meant everything” to her.
“I just need you to know that I’m a highly responsible owner and that my dog was let off leash to go for a swim and was coming back to me.”
The victim alleged another of the dogs was also off leash and “rushed at him aggressively, intimidating him”. The dog owner denied this.
She said her second dog was impounded “despite not being involved in the attack in any way”, and a rushing charge was later withdrawn.
Ihaka questioned the dog owner about whether the second dog showed any aggression to the victim.
She insisted the other two dogs were under her control “at all times”.
“I swear on my own life ... and I have never blamed the victim. My dog hurt the man. I have never disputed that. I’m so sorry, I apologise more than I ever could.”
The dog owner said she never expected to be in this position.
“My [second dog] is everything to me and I never let her off lead when out walking, she’s always muzzled ... If I lose my dogs, I don’t know what I have got to live for.
“I’m asking for a second chance to prove to you I can continue to be a responsible dog owner.”
Tate told the dog owner it was her responsibility to prevent an attack.
He said the panel had to be “very confident” she could keep her dogs under control at all times.
The dog owner said she was going through further dog training.
“I can assure you I will never be in this position again.”
The dog owner’s cousin attended the hearing and described the animals as “wonderful dogs”.
He said the attack was “a very out-of-the-ordinary circumstance” and the ownership ban would be “incredibly detrimental”.
Another supporter, who described herself as a dog behaviourist and long-time friend of the dog owner, agreed.
“I’m concerned that if this ends up with the disqualification [upheld] and she is named, it’s going to have a hugely detrimental effect on her health.”
The supporter said allowing the dog owner to be identified could affect her present and future employment and “her standing in the community”.
The panel reserved its decision and imposed interim name suppression.
Sandra Conchie is a senior journalist at the Bay of Plenty Times and Rotorua Daily Post who has been a journalist for 25 years. She mainly covers police, court and other justice stories, plus general news. She has been a Canon Media Awards regional/community reporter of the year.