Dog attacks legalized by the Australian State Government

THE State Government has been accused of effectively legalising dog attacks through a recent legislative amendment described as potentially exposing people and pets to serious injury and even death.

Victoria's most experienced prosecutor of the cases claims a re-wording of the Domestic () Animals Act "basically decriminalises" the offence.

Lawyer Basil Stafford told The Age the Government's "stupid" amendment may mean that "dogs roaming our streets can now legally maul our children and our pets".

Mr Stafford said the "monumental stuff-up" could also mean attack dogs seized would have to be released, victims would lose claims to compensation and prosecutions would be thwarted.

In a change passed by Parliament on December 12 to the act's section under penalty and liability for a dog attack, an owner "means the person who apparently has control of the dog" when it attacks, bites or rushes.

Mr Stafford, of the firm Elliott Stafford and Associates, described the use of the word "means" instead of "includes" as a "total lemon-headed attempt at draftsmanship'.

Mr Stafford, who has prosecuted attack cases for more than 20 years, said: "The change, which provides an exclusive definition of owner, reduces dog attack offences to only those situations where a person is apparently in charge of the attacking dog.

"In my experience, most attacks occur when the dog is at large and not under the control of any person, so it follows that in those circumstances, which are the vast majority of cases, there now will be no offence."

He claimed that under the legislative change, if a child was attacked by a stray dog in a park "no offence would be created and the council ranger could not seize the dog".

Mr Stafford said: "While it could be impounded for being at large, it would now have to be released if claimed and the owner would not be liable for the attack."

He argued that a right to compensation had also been removed by the amendment and that councils would have to reconsider "whether to prosecute dog attacks or seize savage dogs that have attacked".

Mr Stafford said: "The problem is the uncertainty that is now created.

"Short of recalling Parliament, I would hope the Supreme Court would apply an interpretation that gives effect to the intention of the legislation rather than its literal meaning."

A spokeswoman for Agriculture Minister Joe Helper said: "The Government does not agree with this legal interpretation.

"Dog owners have responsibility for their dogs whether they are inside or outside their properties."

Victorian RSPCA president Hugh Wirth said he expected many of the amendments that were passed "will be challenged in court by various stakeholders".