Download #39 (18.06.2015) Australia`s Most Expensive Dog

This page was exported from - Groom & Lavers Lawyers Toowoomba
Export date: Mon Jun 12 16:15:10 2017 / +0000 GMT
#39 (18.06.2015) Australia's Most Expensive Dog
On 10 June 2015 the High Court published its decision in Isbester v Knox City Council. The decision represents a reprieve for the
Staffordshire Terrier, affectionately known as ?Izzy?, from a destruction Order made by the Knox City Council in Victoria.
The decision also translates to a hefty legal bill for the Council, which was Ordered to pay the appellant's legal costs. Knox City
mayor, Peter Lockwood, has publically reported that the costs may well exceed the sum of $600,000.00.
Facts
On 4 August 2012 Izzy attacked a person and caused ?serious injury?, (namely a 1.5cm cut without penetration). The appellant,
being the owner of the dog, pleaded guilty to a criminal charge in relation to the attack.
The prosecution against the appellant was conducted by the Council's ?Coordinator of Local Laws?, Ms Kirsten Hughes.
Subsequently, the Council exercised a power under Victorian legislation to seize Izzy and make a decision whether to Order the
dog's destruction. Ms Hughes sat on a panel of 3 Council officers charged with deciding Izzy's fate. Ms Hughes participated fully in
the decision making process and was instrumental in deciding that Izzy should, in fact, be destroyed.
Issue on Appeal
The issue on appeal was whether the Council had fallen into error, by denying the appellant procedural fairness, on the ground that
Ms Hughes both conducted the prosecution against the appellant and was involed in deciding Izzy's fate.
Ultimately, the High Court overturned a decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal and quashed the Council's destruction Order.
In doing so, the Court found that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that Ms Hughes might not have brought an
impartial mind to the decision making process, and there was thereby a breach of the rules of natural justice such that the destruction
Order should be quashed.
Effect of the Decision
Judicial review of government decisions is not focused on whether a decision is lawful per se, but on the process adopted in reaching
a particular decision. Put another way, the focus is on the journey, not the destination.
The decision is more instructive, however, as a reminder that principles cost money and even government decisions are subject to
scrutiny and liable to be challenged and set aside.
Despite this, the Council has publically indicated that it will persist with the destruction process until Izzy is well and truly dead and
buried. This decision, it appears, has been made in the face of an offer from the RSPCA to rehabilitate Izzy.
If for no more than the $600,000 legal bill, we opine that Konix City Council's ratepayers might have a different view about Izzy's
Output as PDF file has been powered by [ Universal Post Manager ] plugin from www.ProfProjects.com
| Page 1/2 |
This page was exported from - Groom & Lavers Lawyers Toowoomba
Export date: Mon Jun 12 16:15:10 2017 / +0000 GMT
future.
Should you require any further information on this article, or legal advice generally, please contact us today on (07) 4616 9600, or
via our contact page.
Output as PDF file has been powered by [ Universal Post Manager ] plugin from www.ProfProjects.com
| Page 2/2 |