-
Recent Posts
- The Supreme Court on ‘exceptional circumstances’ in the Dog Control Act 1996 – Sharma v Auckland Council [2024] NZSC 141
- Golriz Ghahraman: Appeal (Dismissed) of Declined Discharge Without Conviction
- Capping sentencing discounts at 40 per cent – the Sentencing (Reform) Amendment Bill 2024
- No sentencing discount for remorse for mere willingness to participate in restorative justice
- Discounting Time on Electronically-Monitored Bail at Sentencing
Archives
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- September 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
Categories
Meta
Tag Archives: CRI-2022-404-212
The Court of Appeal upholds Telford v Auckland Council: a conviction is a pre-condition for a dog destruction order
[1] Is the conviction of a dog’s owner for an offence under s 57(2) of the Dog Control Act 1996 (the Act) a precondition for making an order for the destruction of the dog under s 57(3)? [2] That is … Continue reading
Posted in Animal Law, Discharge without conviction, Dog Control Act 1996, Law, Sentencing
Tagged 4 July 2005, Auckland Council v Hill, CRI-2022-404-212, Dog Control Act 1996, Fitzgerald J, Halliday v New Plymouth District Council, HC New Plymouth CRI-2005-443-011, Heath J, s 106 Sentencing Act, s 106(3)(c) Sentencing Act 2002, s 57(3) Dog Control Act, Solicitor-General's Reference, Telford, [2020] NZCA 52, [2023] NZHC 31, [2024] NZCA 401
2 Comments
Vernon Tava 