“Charlie [the other dog] was yelping,” the summary said.
A bystander and the other dog’s owner got Suki to let go, before Suki attacked again.
The bystander eventually locked Suki in a nearby public toilet and animal management took her.
The other dog had multiple puncture wounds and was taken to the vet and kept there overnight.
Telford, his family and Suki had only moved to their property five days earlier.
Telford said he’d checked the security of his new property before letting Suki spend time in the yard.
It was revealed Suki suffered from separation anxiety and she had escaped while he and his family were out.
He said Suki’s behaviour was “totally out of character”, the summary said, and that there had never been any complaints about Suki before.
Telford told the court an animal control handler told him he had felt bad when he caught Suki, who looked “really scared” at the time.
Telford also told the court the handler had checked his property and commented that “the property was more secure than what he often sees”.
“The council are representing Suki as [an] ‘aggressive/territorial dog’ - this is simply not true,” Telford said.
“She has never before run away or bitten another animal or human,” he said.
Suki has since been put on anti-depressants and her vet wanted to watch her for senile cognitive dysfunction, otherwise known as “doggy dementia”, Telford said.
High Court Justice Sally Fitzgerald took into account the fact Suki had never attacked another animal or person and “this tends to suggest... Suki does not present a danger to the public”.
Justice Fitzgerald also took into account Telford had learned from the incident and was keeping Suki muzzled whenever out and about, keeping her inside while he was away, and was being treated for doggy dementia.
Justice Fitzgerald quashed the order to destroy Suki.
