Natasha Kahu of New Plymouth convicted after dog attacked man fixing her car
By Tara Shaskey, Open Justice reporter of
A man was attacked by a dog when he went to Natasha Kahu's house in New Plymouth to fix her car.
Photo:
NZ Herald/Supplied
WARNING: This story contains graphic details of a dog attack injury.
A man visiting a property to fix a car was left with a gaping wound in his leg and facing possible amputation after being attacked by a dog that had previously bitten another person and been impounded several times.
The 62-year-old was at Natasha Raedine Kahu's house in New Plymouth when her dog Boogi, a bull mastiff-boxer cross, wandered into the front yard dragging a chain around his neck.
At the same time, the man walked towards a vehicle in the driveway, intending to inspect it, New Plymouth District Court heard on Wednesday.
But Boogi rushed at him and although the man was able to fend him off initially, the dog took a few steps back and lunged at him, biting his left leg.
The man fought Boogi off, at which point Kahu's partner came outside, dragged the dog away and secured him inside.
The man went back to his car and used a towel to wrap his leg, which was bleeding heavily.
He drove to the hospital, where he underwent surgery to repair his left tibialis anterior tendon.
The man spent three days in hospital after the surgery and had to be readmitted the next month because of issues with the wound.
Animal Control was later advised of the attack and Boogi was seized.
After the March 27 incident last year, Kahu, 54, was charged with owning a dog that attacked and caused serious injury, which she admitted.
At her sentencing on Wednesday, Judge Gregory Hikaka said the man recalled the dog "ripped" a chunk from his shin "and ate it in front of me".
"I got him away but he came back. The only way I got away was that he was eating the flesh from my leg," the man said in a statement read by the judge.
The man said he was immobile for three months and in a lot of pain.
He had to undergo follow-up surgery, the injury became infected twice and he was warned that if he did not rest his leg it would be amputated at the knee.
The judge said the man was unhappy that Kahu's inability to restrain Boogi had caused him so many issues, which were ongoing.
In her affidavit, Kahu claimed the dog had not been aggressive before and children often visited the property and were safe around Boogi.
She believed there were exceptional circumstances in the attack, including that Boogi had been on a chain and she thought he was secure.
However, she had not realised the chain had become detached from the house and he was roaming the yard.
Kahu said Boogi was protecting her and the property when he attacked the man.
Defence lawyer Susan Hurley argued Kahu should be discharged without conviction on the basis that if convicted, it would risk her current employment.
However, Hurley submitted that if a conviction was entered, Boogi should not be destroyed given there were exceptional circumstances involved.
According to the Dog Control Act 1996, if an owner is convicted, the court must make a destruction order unless it can be proven the circumstances of the attack were exceptional.
Prosecutor Jacob Bourke, appearing on behalf of the New Plymouth District Council, opposed the application for a discharge without conviction.
He said the injury caused by Boogi was serious.
"This isn't just a bite that had a little bit of antiseptic applied to it and away we go.
"There were reasonably involved medical requirements for the injury as well as the ongoing psychological impact."
Bourke submitted the consequences of a conviction were not out of proportion to the gravity of the offending and a conviction was warranted.
He also argued there were no exceptional circumstances involved and a destruction order should follow.
"This is a dog that has bitten people at the address before and has gotten loose off his chain before."
Bourke told the court Boogi had previously bitten a Kāinga Ora property manager who had visited the property, and had a history of being impounded.
He referenced Kahu's affidavit and her belief the dog was not dangerous.
"I don't really understand how that can be her position given it's bitten people before and it's got loose, and the council has been involved with her a number of times and have given her chances, warnings and educational opportunities."
Hurley confirmed Boogi had attacked the Kāinga Ora worker but said it did not result in a prosecution.
She said the worker was at Kahu's home to assist other parties in ensuring the property was fenced.
Judge Hikaka said Boogi had previously been impounded several times.
Detailing Kahu's history of non-compliance, he said she had been given every opportunity to address concerns raised about the dog's behaviour.
He found the injury Boogi caused was serious and Kahu had not met the test for a discharge without conviction.
Upon convicting her, Judge Hikaka also found there were no exceptional circumstances involved in the attack and ordered that Boogi be put down.
Hurley indicated Kahu would appeal the outcome and asked that the dog not be destroyed in the meantime.
Kahu was also sentenced to 60 hours of community work.
This story originally appeared in the
New Zealand Herald
.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
8 hours ago
- RNZ News
Nelson property owner jailed for 20 months after 'kidnapping' meter reader
By Tracy Neal, Open Justice reporter of Paul Hogarty took the meter reader's car keys. Photo: 123RF A power company meter reader "kidnapped" by an aggressive property owner says the event has "projected a darkness on her everyday life". The woman, in her 60s, was left terrified by the ordeal that occurred at a rural property near Nelson where she arrived to read the meter in June 2023. She was confronted by the angry owner, Paul Hogarty, who took her car keys, which meant she was unable to leave the site. While it was not heard in Nelson District Court how he managed to get the woman's keys, the court was told she was stuck in her car at the property for about 40 minutes as a result. During that time, Hogarty had refused to give them back and kept making demands of her in a threatening and intimidating manner. Today, Hogarty was sentenced to 20 months in prison on charges he denied, including kidnapping, after a jury found him guilty in January this year. He represented himself at the trial with help from a court-appointed counsel and was also found guilty of unlawfully interfering with a motor vehicle, intimidation and resisting police. The meter reader had gone to Hogarty's property on the afternoon of June 21. It was a job she had done for many years, Judge Jo Rielly said. After being threatened by Hogarty and having her keys taken off her, she remained in her vehicle because she was afraid of what might happen if she got out. "The words you used to attack and intimidate her traumatised her," Judge Rielly said. The woman told Hogarty she was calling the police but this did not appear to concern him. Judge Rielly described him as someone with "very entrenched personal beliefs about the rights of people in society". When the police arrived, Hogarty, a man in his 70s, then resisted being arrested. "It was abundantly clear that the events were a great surprise to her and caused extreme distress," Judge Rielly said. "She had no way of knowing what would happen to her." Judge Rielly said the victim now suffered extreme anxiety, and felt that Hogarty had taken away her right to feel safe. She now dreaded going to work and had suffered financially as a result. Reading from the woman's victim impact statement, Judge Rielly said the victim wanted Hogarty to know, and believe, that what he had done was unacceptable. Judge Rielly said that some of what Hogarty said at his trial implied that he regretted his actions, even though he had not expressed that directly. She agreed with the Crown on a two-year prison starting point on the lead charge of kidnapping. Hogarty was granted a four-month credit for his personal circumstances, which included a lack of any previous convictions, resulting in a sentence of 20 months in prison. He was granted leave to apply for a substituted sentence of home detention if he chose to put forward an address. Judge Rielly said it was sad she had little choice but to sentence a man of Hogarty's age to a term of imprisonment because he failed to co-operate with the court process. She said the Crown had made it clear early on that it was not opposed to an alternative sentence, and that an electronically monitored sentence would sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offending. Judge Rielly said that had always been her preference. However, Hogarty had made it clear on "more than one occasion" that he would not provide an address. "I have tried to reason with you about that but you have maintained throughout that you do not consent to providing an address so it leaves me no alternative but to sentence you to 20 months in prison," Judge Rielly said. * This story originally appeared in the New Zealand Herald .
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Concern Mark Lundy parole board condition impinges on freedom of speech
Mark Lundy Photo: RNZ Mark Lundy hasn't said or written a word publicly since he was released from prison early last month. That's because the man twice convicted of murdering his wife Christine and daughter Amber in Palmerston North in August 2000 cannot speak to the media, post on social media or blog about his case. Given he proclaims his innocence, there is concern this Parole Board condition impinges on his right to freedom of speech. He's on a life sentence, so potentially could be subjected to conditions for decades. When the Parole Board raised the possibility of banning Lundy from giving media interviews , his response was clear: "I'd welcome it with open arms," he told board members. Mark Lundy was released from prison last month. Photo: RNZ / Daniel Jones He said when he was on bail ahead of his 2015 retrial, reporters swarmed his street and accosted him. Private investigator Tim McKinnel said the parole condition not to speak publicly took away a person's most important tool - their own voice. "I think these conditions that gag or muzzle prisoners who come out of prison, who are maintaining their innocence, are really problematic," he said. "I think there is a real risk that comes from preventing people from speaking out on their own behalf." Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. That it was the board raising the matter with Lundy, rather than something he brought up, was concerning. "I think that's quite different than having that question put to them by the parole board: 'We are contemplating a condition where you cannot speak publicly about your case, what do you think about that?' "In the context of a parole hearing, you're going to be a pretty brave prisoner to push back on the Parole Board against those types of questions or scenarios." Gail Maney was acquitted for her role in Deane Fuller-Sandys' death. Photo: Jason Dorday / Stuff In some wrongful conviction cases, such as Gail Maney , her public advocacy played a huge role in proving she was not involved in killing Deane Fuller-Sandys in the late 1980s, McKinnel said. "Look at the history of wrongful conviction cases in New Zealand. There is scarcely a case when the media haven't played a fundamentally important role in exposing those miscarriages of justice. "If you take away the voice of the prisoner in arguing for themselves, I think you're at risk of preventing some of these cases emerging." McKinnel is known for his work in helping expose Teina Pora 's wrongful conviction for killing Susan Burdett. Such conditions might be well intentioned, but they were a breach of freedom of expression, McKinnel said. Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly Pora was also banned from talking to media when on parole before his conviction was quashed. A progress parole hearing heard he was grateful to live without media intrusion. In a statement, the Parole Board said it had on rare occasions imposed media restrictions when granting parole. It did so in Lundy's case to protect him, after he expressed concerns about media interest in him, and to take into account victims' concerns about news reports from when he was on bail awaiting retrial. Media law expert Steven Price said the restriction on Lundy was wide ranging. "It's not just that he can't speak to the media, he can't go on social media either, and he can't go on webpages his parole officer says he can't go on. "They're pretty wide restrictions and they certainly affect his freedom of speech." The Parole Board could impose restrictions for reasons such as reducing the chance of reoffending, but it couldn't be more restrictive than necessary. Photo: Supplied Price agreed with McKinnel that people up for parole, such as Lundy, were likely to agree with any condition the board suggested. "[Lundy's] been convicted twice of murder in extremely controversial circumstances and he can't talk about that to the media. We can't ask him about that. "We can't ask him about his experiences in prison. He can't even go on social media and join a Facebook group to support social media or the All Blacks." Price said the board should have tailored restrictions on Lundy's speech to limit what would genuinely be harmful, but he acknowledged it's a difficult situation. Koi Tū research fellow Dr Gavin Ellis said he hoped the Parole Board would review Lundy's restriction at some point, given its implications for free speech. "It's the wider principle that I think as a society we need to safeguard. The rights under the Bill of Rights Act were hard won, hard fought for, and need to be protected." Media had a right to be concerned at such conditions, Ellis said. The Parole Board noted that in its decision, it said the following: "On balance, this board is satisfied that Mr Lundy will not pose an undue risk to the safety of the community if released on parole on strict conditions designed to address his risk as well as assist in his reintegration and address victim concerns." Although Lundy's parole conditions were imposed for life, he could apply to have his restrictions varied at any time, and he would have a monitoring hearing to check on his progress in October. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
10 hours ago
- RNZ News
Search continues for New Plymouth woman missing for two nights
Photo: Supplied / NZ police The search continues for a New Plymouth woman missing for two nights, with police appealing to walkers and bikers to keep an eye out on trails. The woman, identified only as Jan, was last seen walking north along State Highway 3 near the intersection of Thomason Road, between Egmont Village and New Plymouth, about 11am Tuesday. She was last seen wearing long pants and a green jacket. Police, Land Search and Rescue and other volunteers have been searching around Thomason Road and Lake Mangamahoe areas on Thursday. Police ask farmers and residents of Alfred Road and Albert Road to check their paddocks, sheds or sleepouts, and under anything where a person could seek shelter. If you have seen Jan, or have any information that could help, please contact police via the 105 service, either over the phone or online at Please reference the file number 250611/5626.
