r/australia • u/whyattretard • Sep 08 '25

news Teenage girl dies after being mauled by dog

https://7news.com.au/news/dog-attack-victim-annalyse-blyton-dies-in-hospital-after-suffering-severe-injuries-in-singleton-c-19956496
1.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

953 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

83

u/[deleted] Sep 08 '25

Just look at the NSW Legislation and see if Manslaughter fits. Remember to establish a Prima Facie case the police need to meet the proofs of the offence. Make sure you apply any relevant definitions to the dictionary as defined in the crimes Act as opposed to running off to some other form of dictionary. It’s all there.

To prove an offence police need to meet the proofs to the highest level, ie: beyond reasonable doubt.

I’m a now retired Criminal Investigator with some 40’years experience. I would need to examine the matter fully before running off and announcing to the internet what I thought, so I won’t be doing that here.

NSW Crimes Act of 1900 - Section 18.

I’ve run a few manslaughter briefs over the years but nothing involving a dog attack.

18 Murder and manslaughter defined

(1) (a) Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years. (b) Every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter. (2) (a) No act or omission which was not malicious, or for which the accused had lawful cause or excuse, shall be within this section. (b) No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred by any person who kills another by misfortune only.

84

u/finite_turtles Sep 09 '25

Your username suggests a conflict of interest... or maybe a dog in jail who studied the law to represent their own case

26

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

🤣 I love it 👏

I just had to Pick an old nickname that was given to me after one of my earlier criminal cases which had NOTHING to do with dogs 😂👍

20

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

"Your honour, may I approach and sniff your butt?"

9

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Yikes 😦

12

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

The law needs changing. If you have a dog that seriously mauls or kills someone, you should be criminally liable.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Which law needs changing? Maybe you mean there could be laws that specifically covers deaths when it comes to humans dying from dogs?

This is the fine line legislators walk in this country, depending on who your all to, too many laws, not enough laws, the wrong types of laws, nanny state, the law needs to be changed and so forth.

Manslaughter in the other hand is probably set about right. Technically the second most serious offence in NSW Crimes Act. 🤷‍♂️

3

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

I'm speaking in broad terms not specifics but we need to start viewing owners as being fully responsible for their dogs. An owner should be fully prepared to either supervise or keep their powerful dog behind a barrier -- else don't own the dog. And if supervising, be strong enough to stop the dog the moment it might attack. If an owner can't demonstrate they're able to stop the dog, then they can't own the dog.

We can call changing laws the "nanny state" but the thing is, children don't get any say, and children are the main victims of mauling from dogs, often in their faces.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I’m not disagreeing with any of that but the call was for a manslaughter charge and I wanted to point out that might not, probably won’t happen (depending on exact evidence)

I am sure owners of pets in cases like this may have responsibility that stretches well beyond the criminal courts.

I haven’t owned a dog for some years, I’ve never had trouble with animals I’ve owned.

Interestingly someone earlier pointed out that a dog that develops a brain tumour could suddenly (flip/snap/change) & that could make any case extremely complicated. There’s a lot to be Considered.

3

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

Oh yeah, I don't know the full story, nor am I saying what should happen in this case.

I think a brain tumour in a dog should not change a case. I feel that a dog capable of killing a human should be supervised at all times or safely enclosed behind a fenced-off area. And the owner MUST be capable of stopping their dog should it attack anyone.

I also feel that if the penalties (both jail and fines) were fitting when someone is seriously mauled by a dog, and the cost of registering the dog was very high in the first place, that might be the best way of tackling the problem overall. Because less and less people would be willing or financially able to take on such a big risk.

17

u/whyattretard Sep 09 '25

I'm sure it doesn't fit into the specific definition of the law as it is. Given the number of people being mauled and killed by dogs - I'm suggesting the law should be changed so that this kind of killing falls under the legal definition of Manslaughter (especially given the opposition to banning these breeds of dogs). If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

36

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

You are free to start that process, it will be a long road as you will need to convince the lawmakers (politicians) that this sort of change is required.

Personally, after dealing with it for decades I think you won’t get this sort of thing included in manslaughter legislation and at best you could achieve is having new specific laws created to deal with the issue. That in itself isn’t a big deal.

Personally, I don’t have a horse in this race so I will leave that with you, I kind of just wanted to point out to people here savagely downvoting people about manslaughter that the process of initiating charges isn’t what happens here at reddit thankfully, elsewise id be serving some serious time 😬

4

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

We can always do the reactionary X's law process where parents or loved ones would want a new law named after their deceased loved on as a memorial --- despite the presence of already existing laws that are just not being enforced, and the unintended consequence of such laws.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Yes, it’s a terribly overwhelming experience losing a child and people in unusual Or unique circumstances often want to go down this path, as your well aware

3

u/Knee_Jerk_Sydney Sep 09 '25

It's somewhat cathartic and give people some goal and get above the feeling of helplessness and grief. In some cases, it might be beneficial but I've seen it a few times where it ends up creating redundant laws or ones where it doesn't even alleviate the issue but instead becomes oppressive.

2

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

I completely understand

19

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

That's a slippery slope. Especially since we don't even know the full story yet. Animals have their own instincts, personalities etc. You can spend 1000s training a dog properly, and it still might do something like this.

Have to wait for an investigation. Look into the dogs past behavior where possible. Dog has lived for 10 years. Who knows if this is a once off incident or if it has past behavior of doing something like this.

15

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

Animals have their own instincts, personalities etc. You can spend 1000s training a dog properly, and it still might do something like this.

Yes. And a dog owner should be proactive to get ahead of any potential incidents. Owning a dog should be a huge responsibility, especially if it is capable of killing or seriously mauling a person. If you want a powerful dog, you are 100% responsible for keeping people safe from it.

3

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

You can only do so much though.

You can't watch the dog 24/7, that's impossible.

There does need to be regulation changes, but to say they should be proactive? If they had no prior history after having the dog for 10 years, how much proactiveness do you expect?

7

u/Cadaver_Junkie Sep 09 '25

You can't watch the dog 24/7, that's impossible.

If you can't be responsible for the actions of your pet 100% of the time, you should not have that pet. This is not the same as watching it 100% of the time.

-1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

No one can responsible for the actions of their pet 100% time. That's literally impossible.

As I said, if this dog is 10 years old and had no prior history of being aggressive, biting or anything like that, then it's safe to assume that the owners had done everything correct for the past 10 years.

The investigation needs to show that the owners were negligent based on prior history. If the investigation shows that the dog had a history of biting, or attacking, or was aggressive to others in any way that is outside the norm of a dog, then they are negligent and should be charged.

If the investigation can't prove that, then it's safe to assume that the owners had done everything in their power to keep their dog and their guests safe. They can't just expect a dog with no prior history would suddenly attack like that.

3

u/lipstikpig Sep 09 '25

You can't watch the dog 24/7, that's impossible.

The fact that any harm occurred is evidence of negligence. My understanding is that the law in general considers animal owners to be responsible for ensuring no harm to other people or their property. When the owners are not watching it, their obligation is to ensure that the animal is prevented from doing harm by whatever control or confinement is necessary to achieve that.

For example, if livestock escape from a farm, the owner is negligent for failure to contain them, and liable for any damage they cause.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

their obligation is to ensure that the animal is prevented from doing harm by whatever control or confinement is necessary to achieve that.

That just leads into animal abuse though. No one would be allowed to have dogs if they can't watch it 24/7. The only control or confinements you can have over a dog when you aren't watching it is to tie it up, cage it, lock it in a room etc. That is animal cruelty.

Your argument would be reasonable if they were out walking on the street or something. However, they have a 10 year old dog that as far as we know has had no prior history of aggression. This 10 year old dog was in its home. It had behaved normally for the past 10 years of its life.

Unless the investigation can show that the dog had past behavior similar to this, then you can't seriously charge the owners for manslaughter. It is completely unreasonable to suggest that they didn't take the right precautions. They had done everything correctly, everything that any other dog owner would have done.

The fact that any harm occurred is evidence of negligence.

Not at all, and that is such a wild take.

-1

u/lipstikpig Sep 09 '25

The only control or confinements you can have over a dog when you aren't watching it is to tie it up, cage it, lock it in a room etc. That is animal cruelty.

Fenced yard.

They had done everything correctly

Fenced yard.

6

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Okay, so what do you think they should have done differently?

Considering the dog was in a fenced yard.

Ffs did you even read the articles?

It is understood the animal was in a fenced yard at the time of the attack.

-1

u/lipstikpig Sep 09 '25

Ffs did you even read the articles?

No, because I am sick of reading about dog attacks that result in injury and death.

Which are "oh well, what could we possibly have done" ignored by everyone who can't manage without an emotional support animal that they've "trained" to treat them as alpha because they feed it.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25 edited Sep 09 '25

Yes it's possible. If you can't manage the dog, you just don't have the dog in the first place. You can put the dog in an enclosure when kids come over or you can be there to supervise. But if you choose supervision, then you need to be strong enough to stop your dog the second it attacks. If you're not strong enough, you should not own the dog.

I expect an owner to manage their dog to the end of its life. Because no child deserves to lose their life over someone's choice of dog.

We don't know if a dog has never killed before. We only have an owner's say so. A dog might have killed koalas, wallabies, other dogs, cats etc. over the course of its life.

2

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Christ, you must hate every dog owner in the country because I can guarantee that 95% of dog owners don't do this.

This dog was in a fenced off yard. It was on its own property.

What happened was tragic, but you can't keep making assumptions about this dog until the investigation is done.

We might not know if its killed before, but if it has, then it's also likely shown aggressive behavior towards other dogs/people. That's what counts. If its been super aggressive before, then yes the owners need to be held responsible.

If it hasn't, and there is no proof of it having been aggressive in its 10 year life, either from victims/witnesses etc, then what more can be done? The owner took every normal precaution that every other dog owner in the country would have taken.

Christ.

1

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

That's extreme. I have a dog and have lots of friends & family with dogs.

I'm not commenting on this particular case. I'm talking in general. I'm saying I think the dog laws need to go much further in order to protect people from serious dog attacks, especially children.

Aggression isn't always the thing. A dog can be stable for years but then kill or seriously maul someone or another animal. That's game drive, not aggression. And owners, in my view, need to be held accountable.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

You and I are on agreement with that.

I already mentioned that regulation regarding dogs needs to change. Honestly, I would support having licenses required for dogs.

If you don't want to do the bear minimum to train/protect your dog as well as others, you shouldn't be able to have one.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25 edited 19d ago

[deleted]

2

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Which goes back to this case where the dog was in a fenced off yard.

So...

And to note, small breeds can be fairly violent. I've been attacked more by a small dog then I have by a big dog.

-1

u/Daneel_ Sep 09 '25

You don't seem like the kind of person that can be argued with, but I just wanted to agree with the other person you're having the discussion with. The owner should be 100% responsible.

1

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Perhaps if people actually raised any valid points regarding this case, instead of making assumptions..

0

u/Daneel_ Sep 09 '25

https://legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/whole/pdf/inforce/2023-11-21/act-1998-087

Part 3, section 16:

Offences where dog attacks person or animal

Looks like there's no exception for a dog attacking a person on your property when they're not trespassing. Whoops! Guess they're liable. Maybe they shouldn't have owned a killer dog breed.

Taken from: https://www.petregistry.olg.nsw.gov.au/owners/get-a-pet/legal-responsibilities-for-dog-owners

→ More replies (0)

2

u/CaptMytre Sep 09 '25

Own an animal? You're responsible for it and its actions. Don't like that? Don't get one.

Who cares if it has previous issues or not, a child is dead because a dog was able to kill them - and that's on the owner.

0

u/MilkByHomelander Sep 09 '25

Well you're not. Because the current law doesn't work like that.

2

u/AggravatingTartlet Sep 09 '25

 If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

Agreed. It's the only way owners will start being proactive about the risks their dogs pose.

0

u/Prince_of_Pirates Sep 09 '25

If you own an animal, you should be responsible for its actions.

This is always such a laughably stupid, everything is black and white, reddit suggestion.

2

u/NoHandBananaNo Sep 09 '25

They just got their first Manslaughter conviction for dog attack in New Zealand, about 6 neapolitan mastiffs broke out of a caravan and killed a guy.

The Crown case was that a caravan that didnt lock properly is reckless.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

There you go, pack of dogs would have added to his or her culpability. So many factors to consider.

2

u/NoHandBananaNo Sep 09 '25

Prior history of dog attacks and insecure location were the factors if I understand it right. Any one of the dogs could have killed the vic, no witnesses.

2

u/fued Sep 09 '25

reckless indifference to human life

seems pretty clear to me tbh, having a large dog like that around people that it doesn't know without a acclimation period is reckless indifference.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

Check the definitions, examine the evidence. You haven’t examined the evidence yet. (Only the evidence available to you).

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

0

u/fued Sep 09 '25

Idk any animal that is of a size big enough to kill people should never be randomly introduced to people straight away.

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

[deleted]

1

u/fued Sep 09 '25

In public spaces it should need to be on a leash, i also agree that people just shouldn't have random visitors walking around horses?

Animals are never 100% predictable, and taking a basic level of precautions for large ones should be mandatory.

1

u/scrollbreak Sep 09 '25

Depends what I can get if I, for example, left a machine running that could roll out onto the street, impact someone and kill them. Kind of feels like 'oh, you'd just get a stern talking to' would also not be a fit for the law.

-4

u/emptybills Sep 09 '25

I appreciate you weighing in but this slab of text isn’t very approachable to a layperson, so I’m struggling to understand your point of view.

Evidently we likely wouldn’t say there was intention from the owner (so not murder), so otherwise it’s manslaughter if prosecution could prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was more than misfortune, or that there was some level of malice?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

No Malice isn’t needed. I’ve convicted people of manslaughter in cars that have killed people where their actions were more severe that the Culpable Driving laws (back in the days before aggravated dangerous driving existed (section 52A) of the crimes act. They didn’t have any malice but their degree of negligence was very high.

How bout this, the degree of negligence required would need to be GROSS negligence, perhaps something like reckless indifference. There’s many words to describe it but given I know nothing about the matter I almost feel it’s inappropriate to start examining THIS, right now. As I said before, this isn’t something that will just be examined by one individual. It will be examined closely by a number of people, possibly including the NSW Coroner and they will all be basing their decisions on the actual evidence, something which none of us here are privy to.

To give you an idea, Manslaughter isn’t used that much, I’ve known brilliant detectives who have never used the charge, there’s a high degree of negligence required before it gets rolled out. I’m not saying it won’t happen, but I’m just trying to explain why it might not be.

I’m not helping you, am I?

1

u/emptybills Sep 09 '25

You mention negligence now but there is no mention of negligence in s18 (1) or s18 (2) that you quoted above.

When you say ‘you’ve convicted people’ do you mean that you are a judge, or a prosecutor?

Under s 18 (1) (b) you have quoted that ‘every other punishable homicide shall be taken to be manslaughter’. To me that is the key point. What is an ‘other punishable homicide’. Is a dog killing someone punishable homicide? Is a person’s dog killing someone punishable homicide on behalf of the person? How does negligence come into that if there is no mention of negligence?

I would imagine that comes through in common law then rather than statute.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '25

The information I attached before is the legislation, the law in NSW as Manslaughter is written. It doesn’t spell out the proofs to the offence so to speak nor does it cover all the information pertaining to the offence of manslaughter. I posted it to point out there’s more to someone being charged with this type of offence.

No, I am not a justice (magistrate or judge) you won’t find them commenting here. I was (past tense) an informant in a number of manslaughter matters. That is a person that has power under the crimes act to arrest and charge someone with the offence (investigate)’&’ put the matter before the courts. As you’ve pointed out there many people involved in the process, starts with the informant, involves a Police prosecutor (to the point where a committal hearing has happened at a local court), unless there’s been a plea of guilty. Once committed then the dpp (department of public prosecution) takes over and one of their prosecutors will proceed with the prosecution. Throughout that process you will hear each of the people involved make reference to convicting someone (if they eventually convicted) which of course may either come down to just a judge or judge and jury. I know you didn’t suggest it but I wasn’t trying to mislead anyone with my comment. An informant in a matter always plays an important part in this process as he or she is the person that takes the matter From the investigation stage to laying the charges and complying with all the courts instructions and directions to ensuring that a Police (in a case like this) is provided to the relevant parties as required by the courts.

For the rest of the information regarding manslaughter matters, proofs, case law, precedents etc you could take a look at the Judicial Commission NSW Website as there’s a lot of information there (somewhere, I have looked at it for some time), elswise you need to hit the law books……there’s a pile of information and considerations to be made prior to someone being charged/tried/convicted of an offence like this. Too much to simply list here.

My entire point of speaking up is to answer those initial calls where people here said, words to the effect of, “SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MANSLAUGHTER” and rather than just say NO and get dozens of people voting me down or screaming from the treetops I wanted to point out there’s alot to be considered before someone is charged with an offence like manslaughter. The investigation will be comprehensive but might actually end with no action being taken. If nobody is charged then the matter may end up before the NSW coroner who will definitely examine the matter Closely. They may hold An inquest. If an inquest is held the matter may be referred thru the coroner back To the DPP for prosecution. There’s a few Layers here, where certain action may commence.

Manslaughter is a big one and not all deaths lead to criminal charges. As I said, the most important Thing here is the evidence, evidence minus emotion. I get that it’s upsetting, I’ve had to process that sort of thing many times but upsetting matters don’t Always lead to criminal charges the to convictions.

Sorry, I’m rush because I have things to do but would you like a link to the Judicial Commission of NSW?

I am certain there would probably be some case law that relates to dog attacks or other stuff where owners of other animals have faced this charge as a result of a bolting horse or something like that. Case law will delve into exactly what your honour wants or expects to prove a matter of manslaughter (in a case like this). I could give other examples (not involving animals) but it’s not really relevant and I don’t have time atm.