Appeal seeking to cancel guilty plea based on inaccurate legal advice will not proceed
Despite the applicant’s argument that inaccurate legal advice led to her guilty plea under the Dog Control Act 1996, the New Zealand Court of Appeal refused to consider a second appeal originating from the District Court’s destruction order over two dogs.
On 20 February 2024, a motorist unsuccessfully tried to intervene as two dogs roaming on an Auckland residential street began mauling a cat. Given the cat’s injuries, it had to be put down the next day.
A few days later, the motorist saw one of the dogs running between two properties and informed a council officer about the relevant addresses.
On 7 March 2024, after an anonymous complaint about the two roaming dogs, a council officer visited the property concerned and saw the applicant’s dogs, which matched the descriptions provided.
Authorities impounded the dogs of the applicant in Morgan v Auckland Council [2026] NZCA 324 and charged her with two counts of owning a dog that attacked a domestic animal under the Dog Control Act.
A lawyer advised the applicant on the strength of her case and her ability to pursue reconsideration of diversion. When that attempt failed, the applicant pleaded guilty to the two charges.
Before sentencing, the lawyer advised the applicant on the merits of a discharge application without conviction and the risks of asserting exceptional circumstances to evade a destruction order.
Rather than seeking a second opinion, as her lawyer had recommended, the applicant accepted the advice.
When the applicant appeared for sentencing in 2025, the District Court issued a destruction order over her two dogs.
On the applicant’s first appeal, the High Court judge found that:
The applicant applied for leave to file a second appeal from the destruction order of the District Court of New Zealand. Asserting a miscarriage of justice, she alleged that the High Court judge:
In her proposed appeal, the applicant sought to set aside her guilty plea as the result of inaccurate legal advice. The applicant also asserted the following matters of general or public importance in the proposed appeal:
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The appeal court ruled that the applicant failed to satisfy the high threshold for a second appeal.
The appeal court saw:
Here are some other recent decisions arising from dog attacks.
In a proceeding arising from a dog attack, the Court of Appeal issued a 17 February 2026 decision affirming an assessment of the gravity of the offending as medium, given the victim impact and the pet owner’s prior knowledge of the risk of an attack.
The High Court made a 31 October 2024 decision upholding a destruction order for a dog upon finding that the owner repeatedly failed to comply with the Dog Control Act, including by controlling the animal after numerous aggressive incidents.
The Supreme Court issued a 22 October 2024 decision confirming a destruction order for a dog that attacked another dog and its owner upon rejecting arguments that the incident involved exceptional circumstances.
On 21 March 2026, the government announced a review of the Dog Control Act to help ensure that the legislation would empower local councils to keep communities safe without imposing unnecessary strain on the system and resources.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
