PART C. Israel v Hauraki District Council [2007]

Read the case of Israel v Hauraki District Counciland answer the following questions:

1. Who was the judge who decided this case?

2. On what date did the hearing of this case take place?

3. Which court decided this case?

4. In which Court did Mr Israel appear previously and why?

5.What type of dog did Mr Israel own?

6.What were the 4 arguments Mr Israel put forward in support of his appeal against his conviction?

7.How did the court answer each of these 4 arguments?

ROTORUA REGISTRY RI 2907-463-7 BETWEEN GORDON ISRAEL Appellant AND RespRAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL Hearing: Counsel: SJ Corlett for Respondent algment: 21 June 2007 at 4.30 p.m JUDGMENT OF RODNEY HANSEN J This judgment was delivered by me on 21 June 207 of 4 30 pm. Solicitors Brookfields, PO Box 240, Auckland Copy toc Mr Gordon Israel, General Post Office, Wail ISRAEL V HAURAKI DISTRICT COUNCIL HC BOT CRI 2037-463-7 21 June 2007 Introduction [1] On 27 October 2006 Mr Israel was convicted by Judge BOK Blaikie in the Waihi District Court of two charges under s 42 of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) of a dog control officer with his date of birth. On each charge he was fined $250 and ordered to pay court casts of $130 and, on what the Judge called the initial charge of keeping an unregistered dog, he was ordered to pay solicitor's costs of $250 and witnesses' expenses of $130 [2] Mr Israel appeals out of time against sentence. Background Judge Blaikic heard evidence from a dog control officer with the Hauraki District Council who carried out dog registration checks in the Waihi area where Mr Israel's ives. In November 2005 he located a female border home of which the Council had no record of registration. 1 Mr Israel was advised of the requirement for registration and an invoice was issued to him but Sally remained unregistered. Subsequent visits in February and August 2006 confirmed that Sally was not wearing a registration tag. [5] In the course of the February visit the dog control officer requested Mr Israel to advise him of his date of birth, a request he is entitled to make under s 19(1) of the Act of any person appearing to be in charge of a dog or the occupier of any land on which a dog is being kept. Mr Israel told him he did not have a date of birth. The dog control officer was cross-examined by the Mr Israel, who also represented himself at the hearing in the District Court. There was no challenge to the essential factual elements of the officer's evidence. Mr Israel did not give or call evidence. ludge's decision The Judge said that he accepted without question that Mr Israel had Sully in his session, that the dog had not been registered a d not been registered and that Mr Israel had failed to provide particulars as requested by the dog control officer. abmissions In his admirably succinct and restrained submissions in support of the appeal, Mr vel put forward four principal arguments. The first is that Sally is not a dog for the purpose of the Act. Assisted by biblical references, he submitted that a dog for the purpose of the Act is a homosexual prostitute or a male fox or male wolf. Alternatively, he submitted that what are commonly described as dogs can only be subject to the Act by the voluntary submission of their owners. 19] Secondly, Mr Israel submitted, he is not an owner. He contended that the Act is in the nature of a trust which applies only to beneficiaries. He said the Judge was wrong to disallow questioning on this issue and to find that he was the owner of Sally. [10] Mr Israel's next submission was that he was wrongly convicted of the charge of failing to provide his date of birth. He said that, as he does not use the name on his birth certificate, he does not have a date of birth. [11] Finally, Mr Israel submitted that a conviction should not have been entered in relation to the second charge of failing to register Sally as the infringement notice referred to him and not to being the owner of a dog as required by an amendment to the Act which took effect on 28 June 2006. Discussion (12] The word "dog" is not defined in the Act. However, it is clear from the objects the Act, including references to the care and control of dogs and the obligations of owners of dogs, that the word does not have the restricted meanings contended by Mr Israel, Section 4 of the Act provides: The objects of this Act are- to make better provision for the care and control of dogs by requiring the registration of dogs; and (2) xmasa special Provision in relation to dangerous dogs; that dogs do not cause a suisance to any person and do not injure , (iv) by imposing on owners of dogs obligations designed to ensure poultry, domestic animal, or protected wildlife; and (b) to caused by dogs. of the Act, dogs have the meaning commonly ascribed to them of mammals of the genus (1997). On this issue I agree with Heath I who was required to the context of an application brou of an application brought by Mr Israel to secure the release of Sally detention by the Council in Gordon: of the House of Israel v Sexton & Ors HC HAM CIV 2006-419-1765 15 December 2006. [14] It is also clear that the Act binds owners of dogs whether or not they willingly submit feet to the object of making better provision for the care and control of dogs by requiring their registration. Subsection (1) provides: Every person commits an offence and is liable on sumerary conviction to a fine not dog is registered under this Act for the current registration year. I can find nothing in the Act to support Mr Israel's argument that the Act is in the nature of a trust that applies only to beneficiaries. [15] I reject Mr Israel's submission that because he does not use the name on his birth certificate , he does not have a date of birth. Birth is a function of biology not bureaucracy. Mr Israel was rightly convicted of refusing to inform the dog control officer of his date of birth [16] The notice of which Mr Israel complains was a reminder notice in respect of an infringement offence issued pursuant to ss 21(2) and (3CM(b) Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The notice alleged that Mr Israel committed an offence on 1 August 2006 in that he: Ker s dos of a greater par then 5 months while the dog was not registered under the I year 4 months dog called Sally . (17) The notice failed to reflect an amendment to s 42(1) of the Act (quoted in [14] above) on 28 June 2006 which substituted the words "is the owner of a dog" for the words "who keeps any dog". The notice should have alleged that Mr Israel was the owner of a dog. not that he kept a dog. [18) I am satisfied this error did not invalidate the process. Section 204 of the ummary Proceedings Act applies. It provides; No information, complaint, su or proceeding shall be quashed, set aside, or held irregularity omission, of want of form unless the Court is satisfied that there has been a miscarriage of justice. 19) The error in the notice has not led to any miscarriage. The nonce fairly informneed ever aract of the substance of the offence, The evidence establishes that he was the cutter of the dog at the relevant time. It was no part of his case that he did now own or keep the dog. The defect in the information did not in any way impede his defence of the charge. Result [20] Leave to appeal is granted but the appeal is dismissed. [21] The Council seeks costs. If the parties are unable to agree, I will