The woman said the impact of the mid‑November attack had been “physically, financially and emotionally devastating”, and the council’s decision not to charge the dog’s owner “compounded her distress”.
“It seems the dog’s owner and the dog have more rights than I do as the victim of the attack.”
‘Unprovoked attack’
The victim said the attack happened during a planned work visit. She parked on the road, entered the fenced section and knocked on the front door.
The occupant opened the door, asked the woman to wait a moment and closed the door again.
When the woman returned to the door, the victim saw her attempt to push an American bulldog back inside, but it forced its way through the doorway, immediately charged her and bit her on the stomach.
“It took a massive bite out of my tummy,” she said.
The bite caused a large, bloodied haematoma before the dog briefly released her. The occupant called out to the dog, but it charged again as she ran for the gate.
A Mount Maunganui woman was bitten on her stomach and also the back of her right leg by a dog at a Parkvale property in November.
“It was biting and tearing at my right leg behind the knee. It ragdolled my leg as it tried to drag me to the ground. I ripped my leg out of its teeth, which caused a large laceration and significant damage.
“I genuinely feared for my life.”
The dog tried to charge her again from inside the fence as she fled the property.
She drove herself to Tauranga Hospital, despite her severe injuries.
“When I got there, I was screaming in pain. Security rushed me inside, and the medical staff attended to me straight away.”
The victim drove herself to Tauranga Hospital, despite her severe injuries.
She underwent surgery two days later, spent three days in the hospital and needed further treatment after complications. She was unable to return to work until January 5.
The victim said she still suffered “severe pain” in her stomach and leg and may need further surgery. She said she had incurred “significant financial losses”, including some medical costs not covered by the ACC.
Frustration over case handling
She said an animal services officer took her statement soon after the attack, but never returned for her to sign it. She was later told the investigation would proceed without it.
The victim said she received minimal information and eventually was told the dog had a “right to remain alive”, no charges would be laid and she had no appeal rights.
The council withheld the dog’s attack rating, its classification under the Dog Control Act, and details of any safety measures imposed.
The victim said she was not told what evidence was relied upon to support this decision.
In an email dated February 10, a council officer informed the victim that “all available evidence” had been reviewed in deciding the outcome of the investigation.
The woman’s injuries were severe.
“No one from the council ever sat down with me to discuss my statement or my evidence,” the victim said.
“There has been no justice for me, nor support as the victim of this attack.”
The council’s animal services team leader told the Bay of Plenty Times there had been a “lot of communication” between the council and the victim, which included offers to meet with her face-to-face.
The victim said she urged the council to revisit its decision.
“This attack could have happened to anyone – a child, an elderly person, one of my co-workers.”
Tauranga City Council offices in Devonport Rd. Photo / Brydie Thompson
Council response
Animal Services team leader Oscar Glossop said the victim had no legal right of appeal because there was no prosecution case.
“Our thoughts are with the victim in this situation. No one should feel unsafe in our community and we’re sorry they’re going through this. We understand that a decision not to prosecute can be upsetting.
“We have arranged an independent review of the processes and decision‑making involved, and the victim may also choose to take civil proceedings to recover costs incurred.”
He said the council was limited in what it could share with the victim and others under the Privacy Act.
The Bay of Plenty Times asked why the Privacy Act applied in this case, and why the dog owner was not prosecuted.
Glossop again cited the Privacy Act, and said this prevented the council from releasing information that involved the unwarranted disclosure of another individual’s private affairs.
“We have a responsibility to consider the privacy rights of everyone involved.
“In this case, information withheld relates to another person’s dog. Because of this, we can’t provide the specific classification details or the reasons it was applied.”
He said safety measures were put in place and the situation would continue to be monitored.
Glossop urged residents to report roaming or aggressive dogs so the team could respond promptly.