The son of Tauranga woman Helen Fraser, pictured here at her July trial, says the $42,000 bill is unbelievable, and the council should think about where else to spend such money. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
The son of Tauranga woman Helen Fraser, pictured here at her July trial, says the $42,000 bill is unbelievable, and the council should think about where else to spend such money. Photo / Ethan Griffiths
Tauranga City Council’s legal bill from its failed prosecution of a woman whose dog attacked a vet has topped $42,000, with the cost of a High Court appeal still yet to be tallied.
But the council’s legal and risk manager says cases like this are rare and warrant seeking theservices of private law firms.
Local woman Helen Fraser was charged with owning a dog causing injury after her Rottweiler Chopper mauled the arm of vet surgeon Liza Schneider in the car park of her Fraser St practice on October 14 last year.
During a day-long trial before Judge David Cameron in the Tauranga District Court in June, both parties accepted the attack occurred.
The question was one of responsibility, with the council submitting Fraser should have had more control over her dog, while Fraser’s lawyer suggested the actions of the vet spooked the animal.
Judge Cameron ultimately sided with Fraser, saying Schneider “failed to take any steps to maintain and exercise control, despite having every opportunity to do so”.
Fraser was cleared of the charges and Chopper was released from the Tauranga Dog Pound after spending 271 days locked up.
Had Fraser been convicted, Judge Cameron would have been required to order the animal be put down, unless an exceptional circumstance could be proved.
In court, the council acted as the prosecuting authority, represented by Nathan Spier of Rice Spier - an Auckland-based firm that specialises in local government litigation and dispute resolution.
Helen Fraser was found not guilty in July of owning a dog causing injury. The council appealed the verdict. Photo / NZME
In a breakdown of the legal bill provided to Open Justice, the largest portion of the total cost was $25,390 - solely for the costs incurred by the trial.
After the not guilty verdict was received, a further $5782 was invoiced for the costs of “advice in relation to [the] merits of appeal” and time spent communicating with Crown Law.
The council eventually decided, on advice from Crown Law, that an appeal was warranted.
“Council believes the judge made an error of law because he focused on the conduct of the victim, rather than the legal responsibility of the dog owner to control the dog,” environmental regulation manager Nigel McGlone previously said.
“Crown Law agrees that it is in the interest of the public to clarify this issue of law, as the outcome will have implications for all dog owners.”
A further $6812 was invoiced for the preparation of the application for leave to appeal.
None of the costs so far relate to the substantive appeal hearing, likely to take a day in the High Court at Hamilton in March.
Responding to the figures, Fraser’s son Ryan Tarawhiti-Brown said the cost is a monumental waste of money.
“Some accountability is needed for the spending going on in the Tauranga Council. Community groups, local charities and services need funding and support, whilst $42,000 has been thrown at an attempt to kill a dog,” he said.
“Ratepayers are begging for money to be spent differently, but their voices aren’t being heard.”
But the council’s legal, risk and procurement manager Sam Fellows says: “Prosecutions such as this are relatively rare for Tauranga City Council and require specialist skills. Council will engage external counsel on a case-by-case basis.”
Fellows said the council’s in-house legal team, made up of seven full-time equivalent staff, does not always have the resources or relevant expertise to lead a prosecution.
“With prosecutions, resourcing is a key factor to consider, as a defended trial can incapacitate an in-house resource for a significant period of time.
“Further considerations will include staff availability, the area of law concerned, in-house lawyer expertise, the complexity of a matter and whether it is more efficient to use an external resource.”
The council would not comment on the case as a whole, as it remains before the court.
