Inquest into the death of Ada Holland

Contributing factors

• Council rangers failed to inspect property fencing after reported dog escape and attack on 22 March 2020
• Rangers accepted owner assurances without verification
• Rangers did not follow up to check that dogs were adequately secured
• Rangers did not consult nearby residents about prior incidents
• Rangers did not issue notice of intention to declare dog menacing on 22 March 2020
• Inadequate fencing and gate design allowed dogs to escape
• Dogs were unregistered and largely unmicrochipped despite prior Council enforcement notices
• Owners had history of non-compliance with registration requirements
• Dogs were malnourished and under-exercised, contributing to escape behaviour
• Dogs left premises unaccompanied multiple times in weeks before fatal attack

Coroner's recommendations

1. Shoalhaven City Council review procedures and training for responding to reports of dogs leaving yard or attacks, ensuring rangers inspect property fencing to evaluate adequacy and determine whether seizure powers should be exercised
2. Rangers inspect any changes made to fencing to evaluate improvements and ensure dogs cannot escape unaccompanied
3. Rangers inquire with nearby residents regarding concerns about dogs and dog owners
4. Rangers consider known history of owner compliance with Companion Animals Act and Regulation when assessing likelihood owner will adequately secure dogs
5. Council ensure electronic records are maintained and readily searchable by owner name documenting instances of owner providing false, incorrect or misleading information about dogs
6. Council develop guidelines and training on matters informing evaluation of dog owner 'competency' to effectively control and secure dogs
7. Office of Local Government develop standardised training package for council rangers on dog escape and attack response, including assessment of dog's risk of future attack by breed/type and number of dogs, assessment of owner competence, and factors for exercising seizure powers and issuing notices to declare
8. Office of Local Government examine possibility of enacting statutory limitation on number of dogs of same breed or mixed breed/type that can reside at premises or be under control of owners at premises
9. Office of Local Government examine appropriateness of statutory thresholds for notices to declare menacing or dangerous dogs, including clarifying whether dangerous dog threshold requires serious injury in case of attack on person
10. Office of Local Government review adequacy of statutory penalties for non-compliance with registration and microchipping requirements, including for repeated non-compliance
11. Office of Local Government review adequacy of statutory penalties for owner failure to take reasonable precautions to prevent dog escaping property
12. Office of Local Government review adequacy of statutory penalties for dog rushing, attacking, biting, harassing or chasing person or animal under s 16 of Companion Animals Act, including consideration of increased penalties where serious injury or death results
13. Office of Local Government review adequacy of maximum disqualification period for dog attack offences, particularly those involving serious injury or death
14. Office of Local Government consider desirability of additional stand-alone offence of dog attack causing serious harm or death to person
15. Office of Local Government, in consultation with local government councils, implement public awareness campaign emphasising dangers posed by specific dog breeds and types

Further listening

The Coronial podcast is an independent production unrelated to this website. Despite sharing the same name, the two projects operate separately and have no editorial connection. The author of coronial.com.au has no input on the content of this podcast.