Dog Ruger was on a lead when Henare Heta shot him, High Court finds

A simmering feud over chickens killed by roaming dogs came to a head when a man shot his neighbour's pet in the backside.

Now, Henare Heta has lost his High Court appeal after the judge found he was not legally justified in firing at his neighbour's pet, Ruger.

At a judge-alone trial in the Kaikohe District Court earlier this year for one charge of carrying an airgun, Heta had to prove he was carrying for a lawful, proper and sufficient purpose.

The court heard Heta's neighbours were walking their dog, Ruger, along a bush track and that Ruger was on a lead and about 10m ahead of them.

They told the court they heard a "bit of a crack" and the dog bolted, taking the lead out of his owner's hands.

"He just bolted and ripped the whole thing out of my hand," the complainant said in court.

The owner's partner said it took them a few seconds to come out of the track but they saw Heta behind a trailer on his property holding a gun.

"What was that for?" one of them asked, to which Heta claimed the dog was killing his chickens.

The owners acknowledged one of their other dogs had previously killed Heta's chickens but on that day Ruger was not chasing any chickens.

"I know that for a fact," one said in evidence.

Heta gave evidence that Ruger was not on a lead and saw a chook run past him followed by a dog.

After that, he grabbed his gun, loaded it and shot Ruger in the backside.

He told the court chooks were running around, indicating they were being chased by something.

"The dog didn't come up and run past you chasing the chooks, did it?" he was asked.

"No," Heta responded.

"You knew it was [the complainant's] dog when you saw it?"

"I knew," he said.

Heta said he had shot two other dogs of theirs and had told them he would do it again if "it hassled my chooks any more".

"Did you know the dog that you shot at was their dog?"

"I had a fair idea, mate," he said.

Under the Dog Control Act an owner "may forthwith either seize or destroy any dog running at large among that stock or poultry".

Based on Heta's evidence, Judge Keith De Ridder found the dog was not among his chickens.

"He said that something was chasing his chooks, and in his own words he had 'a fair idea it was their dog'.

"In other words, he assumed that the dog was chasing his chooks but he did not see the dog doing so, and certainly, on his own evidence, the dog was not running at large amongst his poultry."

The judge found Heta "was not shooting [the dog] for a lawful, proper or sufficient purpose" and convicted him.

Heta appealed the decision on the grounds a miscarriage of justice had occurred and the judge did not consider the previous chook incident.

Heta's lawyer, Sam McDonald, told the High Court that Judge de Ridder did not place weight on Heta's evidence and there were inconsistencies in the dog owner's evidence.

McDonald argued the previous chicken-killing incident provided important context, as it was the catalyst for firing the shot.

He said the owner's denial of the incident undermined her credibility, particularly given her partner's evidence that they had offered compensation for the chickens.

Justice Jane Anderson said there was merit in Heta's concerns but found Judge de Ridder was right to focus on the evidence on that day.

The High Court said Heta's reference to "a fair idea" was the primary basis on which the judge concluded Heta had not established a defence.

"The issue is that all he experienced was his chooks becoming unsettled.

"I do not consider that Ruger can be regarded as 'at large' when he was on the retractable lead in the circumstances described. The short period between when Ruger was shot and when the complainant and her partner appear (less than a minute) is consistent with the dog being on a retractable lead."

Justice Anderson ruled there was no miscarriage of justice and the appeal was dismissed.

* This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald.