Hastings District Council
Civic Administration Building
Phone: (06) 871 5000
Fax: (06) 871 5100
www.hastingsdc.govt.nz
OPEN
M I N U T E S
Hearings Committee
(Request for the release of two dogs held in retention pending prosecution - Application by Asher Mitchell - (Marley & Beau))
|
Meeting Date: |
Tuesday, 1 October 2019 and Reconvened in Public Excluded Session later on Tuesday, 1 October 2019 |
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE Hearings Committee
HELD IN THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor,
Civic Administration Building, Lyndon Road East, Hastings
ON Tuesday, 1 October 2019 at 9.45am
[AND Then RECONVENED in public excluded session
IN the GUILIN ROOM, GROUND FLOOR ON tuesDAY, 1 october 2019]
and further CONTINUED later on tuesday, 1 october 2019
(following a resolution to proceed in open session)
Present: Chair: Councillor Lyons
Councillors Lawson and Redstone
IN ATTENDANCE: Regulatory Solutions Manager (Mr J Payne)
Animal Control Officer (Ms M Le Roux)
Democracy & Governance Advisor (Mrs C Hilton)
ALSO PRESENT: “Applicant”
Asher Mitchell (“Applicant”)
Tietie Aiolupotea
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
|
2. |
Request for the release of two dogs held in retention pending prosecution - Application by Asher Mitchell - (Marley & Beau) |
(Document 19/983)
The Chair introduced the members of the Hearings Committee and the Council Officers present. He also outlined the process that would be followed at the hearing and addressed “housekeeping” issues.
The applicant, Mr A Mitchell, made a verbal statement seeking the release of his dogs, Marley and Beau.
The main points that the applicant, Mr A Mitchell and his partner Tietie Aiolupotea raised, or that they addressed in response to questions from the Hearings Committee, included:
· They asked if anyone actually saw the two dogs attack the sheep.
· Mr Mitchell had undertaken improvements to the gate and had added a jockey wheel and a new wooden plank.
· He had just received a quote for two kennels and two dog runs to house the dogs and keep them secure if the gate was to be opened.
· Due to the hours he had been working he had not yet looked at the quote he had received.
· He had considered fencing off part of the property, but that had been costly so he had focussed on getting kennels for the dogs.
· The existing fence on the property came up to chest height on him.
· He assured the committee that his dogs do not jump.
· When the dogs are not taken for a run, they try and get out.
· The gate is not self-closing.
· There had been a “one-off” incident where he had been in the driveway of his property with the dogs. Mr Mitchell said that one of the dogs (Marley) had seen his little sister across the road at her school and had run over to play with her.
· Paragraph 4.3 of the agenda report – Mr Mitchell confirmed that neither of his dogs had ever hurt anyone.
The Regulatory Solutions Manager, Mr J Payne, then addressed the hearing, spoke to his agenda report and responded to questions from the committee.
The main points that Mr Payne and Animal Control Officer Ms Le Roux addressed in response to questions from the committee included:
· Officers believed that the prosecutions would not have been filed if there had not been enough evidence, but made the point that this was not part of the matters able to be addressed at this hearing.
· A correction was needed to the figures in Paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the report – the sustenance costs were actually $16.00 per day (being $8.00 per day, per dog).
The Chairman advised that the Hearings Committee would now go into Public Excluded [Confidential] Session and would undertake its deliberations in order to make its decision.
Councillor Redstone/Councillor Lawson
That the public be excluded from the deliberations in relation to the hearing of the Application for Release of Two Dogs held in Retention Pending Prosecution – A Mitchell (Marley and Beau). The reason for passing this Resolution in relation to this matter and the specific grounds under Section 48(2)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this Resolution is as follows:
That the exclusion of the public from the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting is necessary to enable the local authority to deliberate in private on its decision or recommendation in:
a) Any proceedings before a local authority where:
i) A right of appeal lies to any Court or Tribunal against the final decision of the local authority in those proceedings; or
ii) The local authority is required, by any enactment, to make a recommendation in respect of the matter that is the subject of those proceedings.
CARRIED
The Hearing adjourned at 9.55am and would continue
in Public Excluded Session
to enable the Committee to undertake its deliberations
CG-14-12-00241 1
HASTINGS DISTRICT COUNCIL
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE Hearings Committee
HELD IN THE Council Chamber, Ground Floor, Civic Administration Building, Lyndon Road East, Hastings
ON Tuesday, 1 October 2019 AT 9.45am
[AND Then RECONVENED in public excluded session
IN the GUILIN ROOM, GROUND FLOOR ON Tuesday, 1 October 2019]
and further CONTINUED later on Tuesday, 1 October 2019
(following a resolution to proceed in open session)
Present: Chair: Councillor Lyons
Councillors Lawson and Redstone
IN ATTENDANCE: Democracy & Governance Advisor (Mrs C Hilton)
1. Apologies
There were no apologies.
2. Request for the release of two dogs held in retention pending prosecution - Application by asher mitchell (marley and beau)…cONTINUED…
The Committee then confirmed its decision in Open Session so it could be publicly released. The Substantive Wording is set out below and forms part of the overall decision document. The decision wording, including narrative, is contained in a separate document as noted in brackets and italics below.
SUBSTANTIVE DECISION
Councillor Redstone/Councillor Lawson
Following a consideration of the evidence summarised above and the agenda report presented to the Committee by the Council Officer, it is the decision of the Committee that the application by Mr Asher Mitchell for the release of the dogs “Marley” and “Beau” is DECLINED.
Reasons for the Decision
1. That while accepting the evidence of Mr Mitchell who stated that the dogs did not jump, the Committee considers that the dogs could still be a risk to livestock, due to difficulty in containing them on the Applicant’s property.
2. The committee also acknowledges the efforts being made by the Applicant to house the dogs on the property in the future, but feels on balance of the evidence the dogs still pose a risk by not being effectively contained.
3. That the next hearing of the prosecution by the Court under Section 57 of the Dog Control Act 1996 is still to be heard (date yet to be set) and that if “Marley” and “Beau” were released prior to the Court hearing the Committee was “not satisfied that the release of the dogs would not threaten the safety of any person, stock, poultry, domestic pet or protected wildlife”.
CARRIED
(Note: The full wording of the signed hearing decision is attached as a separate document, but is circulated with, and forms part of these minutes – the signed decision is saved under CG-14-12-00232 in the Council’s records system.
That full decision wording also includes the narrative which summarises details of the hearing process and the evidence that was presented to the Committee for its consideration, in regard to the application).
________________________
The meeting closed at 10.45am
Confirmed:
Chairman:
Date: