City of Kwinana’s “dangerous dog” declaration the right call, SAT finds

The City of Kwinana’s decision to declare two dogs as “dangerous” was upheld by the State Administrative Tribunal earlier this month. Samantha Melanie claims her family had been “ostracised” by their Wellard Street neighbours over incidents involving Patchy, her brindle/black male Staffordshire Bull Terrier Cross, and Bella, her tan female of the same breed. On August 12, 2019, the City declared Patchy and Bella to be dangerous dogs, which Ms Melanie appealed a week later. In labelling the dogs “dangerous”, the City imposed conditions which included the dogs must bebeing confined to Ms Melanie's property and that the yard must be have a fence that prevents them from escaping and that they must be kept on a leash or chain in place. Ms Melanie also has to ensure Patchy and Bella wore a dangerous dog collar and were muzzled in public. The City based its label on three incidents between June and August last year. The owner disputed the City’s decision describing her dogs as “playful puppies” that could be “mischievous” and “naughty”, but that this could be corrected by training. Ms Melanie said there was “insufficient evidence” the attacks the City cited caused physical injury and there were no prior incidents. She claimed the allegations stemmed from one neighbour who had not liked her family since they moved in. Ms Melanie attended the hearing in February and filed three witness statements from neighbours who said they hadn't found the dogs to be aggressive. But she did not bring the witnesses to the hearing and did not give evidence at the hearing, instead calling on her husband, Domenic Melanie, even though he had not provided a witness statement. The first incident occurred on June 20 at her Melford Court neighbour’s home about 1.40pm. Ms Melanie’s neighbour, John Dwyer, returned to his home and after getting out of his car he saw Bella, followed by Patchy, run from a neighbouring property back to Ms Melanie's house. Mr Dwyer said Patchy approached him from across the cul-de-sac “growling and snarling” and both dogs were “baring their teeth and had their heckles up”. Mr Dwyer said he saw another man “'bailed up inside his van” which displayed the sign 'Temico'. Mr Dwyer said he got into the passenger side of the van to avoid being bitten. Ms Melanie admitted Patchy and Bella had escaped her property and were barking, but she insisted they were being “playful” and had ran, but not charged, at the men. Two further incidents both involved claims the dogs acted aggressively to neighbours and tradies working in the street, but none of the incidents alleged the dogs caused injury or damage. In her statement, Ms Melanie said the declaration was impacting on her children as their friends didn’t not want to come over and play because of the dangerous dog signs. She said she and her husband had “taken great measures” to keep their dogs contained, including putting up an electric boundary fence as well as internal fences. “We've actually been ostracised in our street by the rest of the neighbours … there's only about 10 houses in the street, so it's quite hostile every time we pull up,” she said. SAT member Rosetta Petrucci said the “crux” of the dispute was “whether the dogs acted in a playful manner or in an aggressive manner”. Ms Petrucci found Mr Dwyer’s evidence to be reliable as his statements were prepared shortly after the incidents and supported by other witnesses. The tribunal found both Patchy and Bella repeatedly showed a “tendency to attack” and upheld the City’s decision.