Dog Control Information
Response
Sent: Friday, 15 May 2026 04:23 pm
Subject: Official Information Request - Dog Control Information
I refer to your Official Information request of 20 March 2026 that had a time extension to 15 May 2026, for information regarding Councils Animal Shelter (Pound) for the most recent three calendar years.
Question:
In each of the last five calendar years, how many complaints have been made to the council regarding dogs attacking people, and separately, of dogs attacking other animals?
Answer:
| 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |
| Attack on Person(s) | 67 | 67 | 61 | 82 | 70 |
| Attack on Animal | 168 | 209 | 108 | 164 | 151 |
| Attack on both Animal and Person/s | * | * | 2 | 12 | 14 |
| Total | 235 | 276 | 171 | 258 | 235 |
*Council used a system Ozone in these years, which did not record if attacks were both to an animal and person.
Please note that the below is 'reported' attacks. Following a report, it is investigated and will then be determined if there is an attack under the Dog Control Act 1996.
Question:
Of the above complaints, please detail whether any injuries to humans and/or animals were recorded, and also how severe?
Answer:
| 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | ||
| Injury to Person or Animal Sustained? | Yes | * | * | 125 | 179 | 157 |
| No | * | * | 27 | 34 | 42 | |
| Don't Know | * | * | 19 | 45 | 36 |
* Council used a system Ozone in these years and is unable to pull this information easily.
The above data in the “Don’t know” category is based on information gathered when a notification is received by Council from a member of the public, for example, a passerby or a person who wishes to remain anonymous and therefore the information provided is insufficient.
Animal Control Officers are expected to enter details of injuries into our OneCouncil system as part of their duties. However, the OneCouncil system has not been formatted to collate information specifically relating to injuries sustained. Prosecution files all have the severity of injuries sustained as this is part of proving the offence. If we were to search OneCouncil on all dog attack injuries and the severity, this would be extremely time intensive and may attract costs.
Question:
In each of the last five calendar years, how many of the above complaints resulted in prosecution and what was the outcome of those cases? How many are still under investigation and the reasons?
Answer:
Data is not split in the above way, but held as Rehomed
| Taken to Court | Outcomes | ||
| 2023 | 2 | Guilty – Owner charged with 3 counts of s57(1)(a) and 2 counts s53(1). Owner disqualified and owner voluntarily surrendered 3 dogs to be Euthanised. Reparation to Council for sustenance and pound fees and provided to the victim for physical and emotional harm. | |
| Guilty - Owner charged with 2 counts s53(1), 3 counts 57(1)(b) and 2 counts s42(1). Reparation to Victim and dogs to be destroyed. | |||
| 2024 | 10 | Guilty – Owner charged with 1 count Section 57(1)(a) and 1 count Section 53(1) Owner voluntarily surrendered dog to be euthanised. | |
| Guilty – Owner charged with 2 counts 57(3). Dogs destroyed as per court order. | |||
| Guilty – Owner charged with 2 counts 57(3). Owner sentenced with reparation | |||
Guilty – 1 Owner charged with 2 counts Section 42, 2 counts Section 53 and 2 counts S57 1 Owner charged with 1 count Section 57 | |||
| Case Disputed. Discharged without conviction. Reparation to Council and Victim. | |||
| Guilty - 3 counts s58(a), 3 counts s42(1) and 3 counts 53(1) Reparation and Community Service. | |||
| Case did not go to Court. Council decided not to pursue in Court due to insufficient evidence. Dog was classified as Menacing. | |||
| Case did not go to Court. Victim decided not to pursue in Court. Dog was classified as Menacing. | |||
| Case settled outside of court. Owner voluntarily surrendered 2 dogs to be Euthanised. | |||
| Guilty – Owner charged with 1 count s53(1) and 3 counts s33EC. Owner ordered to pay fine. | |||
| 2025 | 2 | Discharged without conviction. Dog owner to be disqualified. Dogs Euthanised and reparation to be paid. | |
|
Active
prosecution before the Court, charges are 57(1)(b) of the Dog Control Act
1996 (representative charge) x2, Section 53(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996
x2, Section 42(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 x2.
First appearance 16 December 2025 | |||
Question:
In each of the last five calendar years, how many of the above complaints resulted in other outcomes – such as warnings, infringement notices, the dog being classified as menacing or dangerous, the dog being seized or the dog being euthanised?
Answer:
The functions within Council's previous system Ozone and current OneCouncil system do not associate with the data in this way. A search of this nature is time intensive and may attract costs.
Question:
Please provide a copy of the Council's prosecution policy for dog attacks in the district.
Answer:
Rotorua Lakes Council does not have a standalone prosecution policy specifically for dog attacks.
Council’s enforcement and prosecution decisions are guided by:
- the Dog Control Act 1996
- the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines
- Rotorua Lakes Council Dog Policy (as amended 9 October 2024)
- Council’s operational standard operating procedures for Dog Attack and Investigations & Prosecutions
Question:
Please outline the Council’s stance on what it should provide victims of dog attacks (or the owners of affected animals) about the actions taken in respect to the attack dogs/involved and their owner, and the reasoning for that decision
Answer:
Rotorua Lakes Council recognises the importance of keeping victims informed regarding the progress and outcome of dog attack investigations.
Council will generally provide affected persons with information relating to:
- whether an investigation is underway;
- whether enforcement action has been taken; and
- the general nature of that enforcement action, where appropriate.
However, Council must also balance this with its obligations under the Privacy Act 2020, the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA), and principles of natural justice.
Council also acknowledges its obligations under the Victims’ Rights Act 2002 where applicable, including keeping victims appropriately informed about the progress and outcome of proceedings.
Accordingly, Council may withhold or redact information where release would:
- unreasonably disclose personal information about a dog owner or third party;
- prejudice an active investigation or prosecution;
- breach legal privilege; or
- otherwise prejudice the maintenance of the law.
Each request for information is assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Question:
What criteria does the council use when deciding whether a dog attack results in prosecution, as opposed to alternative enforcement actions?
Answer:
Council assesses each reported dog attack on its individual facts and circumstances.
In determining whether prosecution is appropriate, Council considers:
- the evidential sufficiency of the available evidence;
- the seriousness of the offending;
- the nature and extent of injuries sustained by people or animals;
- whether the dog has a history of aggressive behaviour or prior offending;
- the actions or level of culpability of the owner;
- public safety considerations;
- the likelihood of successful prosecution; and
- whether prosecution is in the public interest.
Council is guided by the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines and receives advice from its external prosecuting agency, Gordon & Pilditch Solicitors.
Alternative enforcement actions available under the Dog Control Act 1996 may include education, warnings, infringement notices, classification of a dog as menacing or dangerous, seizure, or destruction of a dog.
Question:
Has the council received its own legal advice since July 1, 2023, regarding evidential thresholds for dog attack prosecutions? If so, please provide copies of that advice, with any legally necessary redactions?
Answer:
Council has received legal advice in relation to dog attack prosecutions and evidential matters since 1 July 2023.
However, this information is withheld pursuant to section 7(2)(g) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987, (specifically prosecution cases), on the basis that it is subject to legal professional privilege.
Council also notes that it engages Gordon & Pilditch Solicitors as its prosecuting agency and is guided by the Solicitor-General’s Prosecution Guidelines.
Question:
What budget is allocated annually to Dog Control enforcement and prosecutions, and how much of that budget has been spent on prosecution cases in each of the last two financial years?
Answer:
| FY24 | FY25 | |
| Total Budgeted Expenditure* | $1,349,481.00 | $1,462,631.00 |
*Includes the Opex and Allocated costs. Does not include income derived e.g. Dog Registrations, infringements etc
Please note: That the above budget amounts that the Animal Control Team received is not broken down into specific areas e.g. enforcement, prosecution.
However, Council can provide you with the amounts that were spent on prosecutions for the last two financial years:
| FY254 | FY25 | |
| Prosecution Costs | $ 6,790.76 | $ 11,834.78 |
Question:
Has the council produced any internal reports, reviews, or briefings since July 1, 2023, discussing public safety outcomes, deterrence and reputational or community impacts of prosecuting (or not prosecuting) dog attack cases? If so, please provide copies.
Answer:
Council has not produced any internal reports, reviews, or briefings since July 1, 2023, discussing public safety outcomes, deterrence and reputational or community impacts of prosecuting (or not prosecuting) dog attack cases.
Question:
Is Rotorua Lakes Council looking at reviewing their bylaws around dog control?
Answer:
Due to the legal advice received and the recent updates to the Rotorua District Council Dog Control Bylaw 2005 (as amended 9 October 2024) and Rotorua Lakes Council Dog Policy (as amended 9 October 2024) Council will not be reviewing the Dog Control Bylaw and or Policy.
