Monty was returned to Mead on condition the dog was secure inside the property and muzzled if it left the premises.
Mead's solicitor Jamie Waugh argued that there were exceptional circumstances.
"[The] suggestion seems to be that destruction is about stopping a dog that bites people and has a risk of being violent again," Waugh said.
"Miss Mead has been a dog owner for 51 years and had no issues with dogs. The dog now stays at home and council has let it be there for a number of months."
But Judge Crayton said he struggled to see how these circumstances were exceptional.
"The legislation actually presumes that a dog that has attacked, will attack again and that's why destruction is mandatory unless there are exceptional circumstances," he said.
"There is little distinction between a dog moving towards the water and a human being. In either instance, the attack, if it occurs, is one that is disturbing and concerning."
Judge Crayton ordered Mead to pay reparation of $890.50 for expenses incurred by the victim, $350 emotional harm reparation, $250 solicitor's costs and an $80.50 service fee.