The woman was having counselling for trauma. Nerve damage to her hand had caused loss of feeling and strength in it to the extent she couldn’t pick up her baby for three months.
The injury also prevented her from being able to do her normal work duties.
Poutu was fined $1800 in Gisborne District Court yesterday, having earlier pleaded guilty to a charge of owning a dog that seriously injures a person or causes the death of protected wildlife.
The offence is punishable by up to three years imprisonment or a fine of up to $20,000.
Judge Turitea Bolstad took into account Poutu’s remorse, willingness to have his dogs put down and a successful restorative justice meeting where he had paid the victim $5000 for lost earnings.
Poutu told police that his heart “sank” when he learned what happened to his neighbour. He was more concerned about her than his dogs. He called the pound immediately to have the dogs put down.
He was tearful during the sentencing hearing as he had been throughout the restorative justice conference, duty solicitor Audrey Aitcheson said.
At the meeting, he had expressed deep sorrow for what his dogs had done. He was conscious the attack could have been even worse and was thankful it wasn’t.
Poutu said he was not going to be a dog owner again any time soon — if ever.
He accepted the effects on the victim and her family were significant and long-lasting.
Ms Aitcheson endorsed the recommendation in a pre-sentence report for a fine or an emotional harm payment, which if rejected by the victim, would go to the SPCA.
She submitted that in terms of comparable cases, this one was akin to an Auckland one in which Elijah Button’s two bull terrier-type dogs attacked an elderly woman and her small terrier as they walked down the woman’s driveway. The terrier was killed; the woman injured.
Button was fined a total of $1600. Reparation of $2900 he was ordered to pay was reduced on appeal to $1000 to be paid at $20 weekly. Button had argued he couldn’t afford to pay the earlier-imposed amount.
Ms Aitcheson said while Poutu had paid the victim a lump sum for her lost earnings, he was struggling financially after damage caused at his property by the recent floods in Mangapapa.
Judge Bolstad agreed he could pay the fine by instalments.
She noted Poutu had no previous similar convictions.
It was to his credit that he had not tried to challenge the destruction of his dogs.
There had clearly been an amicable outcome to the restorative justice conference.
Notwithstanding the pain and upset caused to her and her family by the attack, the victim had accepted Poutu’s apology and wanted him to stop beating himself up.
The court was told that Poutu and his neighbour had agreed not to have more than two dogs at each of their properties.
Poutu’s dogs were a mother and son, one of them a Labrador-cross.
The victim and her family had two German shepherds.
The dogs were all subject to the usual district council checks.
The judge understood there had been some issues with Poutu’s dogs, which he and his neighbour had tried to mitigate.
However, the neighbour’s concerns were ongoing — so much so that she and her family had decided to move.
Judge Bolstad said she didn’t have much information but noted an inference someone else had been bitten at some stage.
She accepted Poutu had tried to mitigate any risks posed by his dogs but clearly it was not enough. Unfortunately, the dogs were able to escape from the property, albeit because someone else left a gate open as happens in many cases.
This case was a clear reminder to dog owners to be prepared for the inevitable and of their obligations to keep dogs safe and secure, the judge said.
