Queensland dog laws need more bite

After a vicious dog attack on a former Gold Coast city councillor, pressure is growing to require dog owners to have public liability insurance, writes Bruce Simmonds.

Stefanie Garber • 05 October 2015 • SME Law

Current Queensland laws generally allow every dog to get one 'free' bite, but the law is poorly structured and needs to be toughened so a dog owner is held responsible in town settings for any and all actions by their dogs.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

The issue has regularly made headlines in Queensland over the years, with vicious dogs attacking people in the streets and public parks.

It is back in the news again after Susie Douglas, a high-profile Gold Coast city councillor between 2004 and 2012, was chased down a suburban street by an eight-month-old crossbreed bull-mastiff last week, as it repeatedly savaged her. Ms Douglas was hospitalised with bite wounds to her back, buttocks, calves and legs.

The attack happened when Ms Douglas, who intends standing for council next year, was campaigning door-to-door in a Gold Coast suburb

The dog was later surrendered to the council’s dog control officers and destroyed by the council.

VIEW ALL

The attack also renews a call I made last year for owners of dangerous dogs to be legally required to pay up, to ensure dog attack victims’ medical costs are covered.

Why should owners of dangerous dogs be exempted from having to insure against their dogs' behaviour? Anyone whose activities could endanger the public is required to have public liability insurance cover. The cost of dog insurance would be a pointed reminder to dog owners of their responsibilities.

I have acted for numerous dog bite victims in compensation claims and feel the public does not necessarily appreciate the ongoing trauma victims suffer from dog attacks.

In some respects, the attack on Susie Douglas puts a public face on Gold Coast dog attack victims who too often are treated almost as just a statistic. What if the victim here was a child or a baby? Our Queensland dog laws are too lax.

Dog owners in town settings should be responsible for all actions of their dog. If they can't look after it they shouldn't have one. A dog should not be able to leave its home property to attack passers-by. In the country if a dog bit a person or stock it would be shot.

I believe Queensland should adopt the New South Wales system where owners are automatically liable for their dog’s behaviour and can be fined or even jailed if they ignore their responsibilities.

In Queensland, even though a dog is allowed to have a first bite before it can be classed as dangerous, you still have to show negligence in not containing the animal.

There’s no real criminal liability here although certain dangerous breeds are banned, as they should be. But the dog laws system is still soft and needs strengthening.

We should have a system that says you must have compulsory third-party insurance when registering your dog. If the dog bites someone, there’s automatic liability on the dog’s owner.

The system could also provide for a substantial fine and the dog’s destruction if the dog’s insurance or registration lapses.

Responsible owners will follow the rules; it’s the irresponsible or careless ones we need to target.

It should be that if a person can’t insure their dog, then they can’t have a dog, just as you can’t legally drive a car if there’s no CTP insurance.

Bruce Simmonds is a partner and litigation director at Gold Coast law firm Parker Simmonds Solicitors & Lawyers. This article was prepared with the assistance of solicitor Zoe Ford.

Ky Saturday, 04 February 2017

I'm currently having to deal with an incident where someone had let both our dogs out, and they have been in an incident. My Question to you is should I and my dad be charged with neglect because some ar*e hat let our dogs out? Our fence is over 6ft tall and we have made sure all fence pails are fixed and are steady. We even have locks on all the gates but they had been cut in order to let them out. This person took advantage of the fact that we were away and our neighbours (who keep an extremely good eye on our dogs as they are needy af) were sleeping. They are beautiful natured dogs towards humans but unfortunately due to the owners who had them before us they don't like other animals. We are happy to pay for any damage that they may have caused as we are responsible for them but being charged with something that was out of our hands is bull****.

1
Lyn Laskus Thursday, 15 October 2015

I have been dealing with people's dog issues all over Qld as a volunteer since 2007 since my own dog was falsely accused of wrong doing. I represented my self but am strong enough to do that and the council backed out. What I found was councils insist on ignoring the AMA and continue to employ people who have no certified qualification in animal behavioiur or care and investigations. Many councils refuse to adopt DNA as a means of identifying the attacker. The reason being is that it would show how often they are making mistakes at identify the wrong dog/dogs . I and a friend are dealing with a case in Rockhampton that is soon to go to court where the council employees fabricated a history, and behaviour of the dogs when their were no witnesses to the attack and the description given by the victim in the first instance did not match the accused dogs who live a kilometer away from the attack and live behind six foot fencing and locked gates. Thanks to the RTI we have established that fines and a history on this person and his dogs do not exist and their own audio recording taken by the officers also support the fact that the officers lied to the council. Officers fabricated manipulated misrepresented and contaminated evidence as a way of gaining Councillors support to move a motion to prosecute this person, in order to protect their jobs. They almost always pick on a . A person who is not equipped to deal with this sort of matter due to physical , emotional and financial frailty . This person has only just be granted legal aid following an appeal. With only two weeks to go I worry that no solicitors will be available to take the case dispite the fact that volunteers have put the case together and it is ready to go. . First off such attacks need to be investigated by police not people employed from the street by councils and that police officer should have a certificate four in animal behaviour under the Australian Standards in Qualifications. . DNA swabbing must be established in Qld in all hospitals and doctor surgeries before wounds are dressed and DNA taken of suspect, dogs. Get the right dogs first then discuss with proper qualified people the circumstances . As Rob Pyne said in parliament that an inquiry needs to be made into corruption in local government. I agree. I speak also as a person who has been attacked by dogs

1
Adrian Argo Tuesday, 06 October 2015

I agree with Debbie.At the moment due to weak laws covering all aspects of looking after dogs there needs to be a major overhaul of the system in place

0
Adrian Argo Tuesday, 06 October 2015

Having been on the receiving end of other moronic dog laws here in Queensland it comes as no surprise that the dog attack laws are so weak.The whole system needs to be investigated and changed to a logical and fairer set of laws unlike the tripe in place at the moment.

0
Debbie Bell Monday, 05 October 2015

Suggestion for new law:Charge the owners and caregivers of dogs that inflict severe injury or kill their victims (pets/people/cattle, horses), with animal neglect and cruelty.Start an animal abuser registry. When found guilty, the owners and caregivers of the dangerous dog will be added to the registry and banned from ever owning or living with dogs again for life.Any dogs found in their care or on their property will be immediately confiscated, and they do not get the dogs back!Signs must be posted at residence: "no dogs permitted, by law."Choose your pets wisely; manage them carefully. If you fail to keep your dog and your community safe, this dog will become your last dog, for life!Remember, a chain is only a strong is weakest link. If your family includes members who are not good at closing gates, or keeping dogs leashed, better not choose a dog inclined to, and capable of, inflicting severe injuries or killing humans or dogs.This should have wide support, as it will weed out irresponsible dog owners.No compassionate dog lover would want dogs to be forced to live with irresponsible humans.This law is not breed specific, so bully dog owners should be the first to promote it!Dog fighters would hate this plan.

0